| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kaiting Chen <ktchen14(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is NEW.ctid usable as table_tuple_satisfies_snapshot? |
| Date: | 2023-05-26 16:49:11 |
| Message-ID: | 2002278.1685119751@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kaiting Chen <ktchen14(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:34 AM David G. Johnston <
> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 8:04 AM Kaiting Chen <ktchen14(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> 2. If I lookup the row by its ctid, will the visibility map be consulted.
>> No, but that doesn't seem to be material anyway. Your user-space pl/pgsql
>> function shouldn't care about such a purely performance optimization.
It'd be a waste of cycles to consult the map in this usage, since the
tuple of interest is surely not all-visible and thus the page couldn't
be either.
> Just to clarify, there's no way for SELECT FROM foo WHERE ctid = NEW.ctid
> to return a row that ordinary wouldn't be visible right? There's no magic
> going on with the qual on ctid that skips a visibility check right?
No, a ctid test isn't magic in that way; nodeTidscan.c applies the
same snapshot check as any other relation scan.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-05-26 16:56:50 | Re: Cleaning up nbtree after logical decoding on standby work |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2023-05-26 16:24:35 | Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction |