From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze |
Date: | 2014-01-02 08:48:26 |
Message-ID: | 20140102084826.GA2683@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2014-01-02 05:26:26 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> 2) refetching a row could conceivably end up retrieving different data than
> was present when the row was originally read. (In some cases that might
> actually be the intended behaviour)
That's possible with system columns as well. In the normal cases we'll
only have copied the HeapTuple, not the HeapTupleHeader, so it will be
re-fetched from the (pinned) buffer.
> If this came up earlier I'm sorry but I suppose it's too hard to have a
> function like foo(tab.*) which magically can tell that the record is a heap
> tuple and look in the header? And presumably throw an error if passed a non
> heap tuple.
I don't see how that could be a good API. What happens if you have two
relations in a query?
Even if that wouldn't be a query, why would this be a helpful? Seems
like a poor reinvention of system columns.
Andres
PS: Could you not always include the full quoted message below your --
signature?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-02 08:53:34 | Re: more psprintf() use |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-01-02 07:49:48 | Re: more psprintf() use |