From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
Date: | 2011-01-31 20:15:42 |
Message-ID: | 1296504942.7673.13.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 13:55 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think this function really cares about the visibility with
> > respect to the current snapshot, right?
>
> What it cares about is whether some other particular top level
> transaction wrote a tuple which we *would* read except that it is
> not visible to us because that other top level transaction is
> concurrent with ours.
Or a tuple that you *are* reading, but is being deleted concurrently,
right? Or has been deleted by an overlapping transaction?
> If so, we want to flag a read-write conflict
> out from our transaction and in to that other transaction.
It still seems like HTSV would suffice, unless I'm missing something.
I think "visible" is still needed though: it matters in the cases
HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD and HEAPTUPLE_LIVE. For the former, it only
allows an early exit (if !visible); but for the latter, I think it's
required.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-01-31 20:27:25 | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-01-31 20:04:38 | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |