| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: HOT synced with HEAD |
| Date: | 2007-09-16 19:16:11 |
| Message-ID: | 17986.1189970171@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So are you suggesting we go back to the earlier way of handling
> aborted tuples separately ? But then we can not do that by simply
> checking for !HeaptupleIsHotUpdated. There could be several aborted
> tuples at the end of the chain of which all but one are marked HotUpdated.
> Or are you suggesting we also check for XMIN_INVALID for detecting
> aborted tuples ?
Yeah. As the code stands, anything that's XMIN_INVALID will be
considered not-HotUpdated (look at the macro...). So far I've seen no
place where there is any value in following a HOT chain past such a
tuple --- do you see any? Every descendant tuple must be XMIN_INVALID
as well ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-09-17 00:40:47 | Re: invalidly encoded strings |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-09-16 18:42:23 | Re: HOT synced with HEAD |