Re: Musings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Musings
Date: 2002-05-05 18:01:53
Message-ID: 15417.1020621713@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> I guess I don't understand. Why does it have to visit all of them?

Because it doesn't have any way to know in advance which one(s) are
visible to it.

> If ordering
> them from newest tom oldest, and then take the first transaction ID that it
> smaller then current transaction id, doesn't that work?

No. For starters, we couldn't guarantee that insertion order is the
same as transaction commit order. Even if we did, your assumption
that commit order is the same as visibility is too simplistic. And
none of this works if the index isn't unique.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-05-05 18:15:56 Re: Musings
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-05-05 17:52:09 Re: pg_config Makefile includes hyphens in configure arguments