From: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using xmin and xmax for optimistic locking |
Date: | 2017-02-20 20:56:51 |
Message-ID: | 20170220205650.7xv44r6o5uhnqmwd@hermes.hilbert.loc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 03:44:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > where table.*::text = (saved from select).
>
> > If the row was changed between the time it was first read and updated, the
> > update will do touch any rows as the ::text will be different.
>
> > Why can't we use xmin and xmax columns to achieve the same.
>
> Well, that doesn't do quite the same thing: the cookbook query will
> proceed if there was a no-op update in between (or maybe even two updates
> that canceled each other out). If you look at xmin then you won't proceed
> in such cases. I could imagine either behavior being "right" depending on
> your application needs.
Also a consideration: table.*::text may become quite unwieldy
if there's one or more BYTEA columns in the table.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-20 21:22:51 | Re: Using xmin and xmax for optimistic locking |
Previous Message | Adam Brusselback | 2017-02-20 20:47:36 | Re: Search on very big (partitioned) table |