From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE) |
Date: | 2012-12-06 00:43:08 |
Message-ID: | 18997.1354754588@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> After reading that thread, I still don't understand why it's unsafe to
>> set HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED in those conditions. Even if it is, I would
>> think that a sufficiently narrow case -- such as CTAS outside of a
>> transaction block -- would be safe, along with some slightly broader
>> cases (like BEGIN; CREATE TABLE; INSERT/COPY).
> I haven't looked at the committed patch - which seemed a bit
> precipitous to me given the stage the discussion was at - but I
> believe the general issue with HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED is that there might
> be other snapshots in the same transaction, for example from open
> cursors.
From memory, the tqual.c code assumes that any tuple with XMIN_COMMITTED
couldn't possibly be from its own transaction, and thus it doesn't make
the tests that would be appropriate for a tuple that is from the current
transaction. Maybe it's all right anyway (i.e. if we should always treat
such a tuple as good) but I don't recall exactly what's tested in those
paths.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-06 00:46:44 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... NOREWRITE option |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-06 00:37:55 | Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2 |