From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cursors FOR UPDATE don't return most recent row |
Date: | 2012-01-30 01:13:43 |
Message-ID: | 22199.1327886023@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of sb ene 28 01:35:33 -0300 2012:
>> This is the same thing I was complaining about in the bug #6123 thread,
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9698.1327266271@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Hm. Okay, I hadn't read that.
> In my FOR KEY SHARE patch I have added a heap_lock_updated_tuple that
> makes heap_lock_tuple follow the update chain forward when the tuple
> being locked is being updated by a concurrent transaction.
Um, we do that already, no? Certainly in READ COMMITTED queries, we
will do so, though it happens at a higher level than heap_lock_tuple.
> I haven't traced through FETCH to see if it makes sense to apply some
> of that to it.
The issue here is what to do when the update came from our *own*
transaction. In particular I'm a bit worried about avoiding what the
code calls the Halloween problem, namely an infinite loop of re-updating
the same tuple if the scan keeps coming across newer versions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-30 02:09:02 | Re: cursors FOR UPDATE don't return most recent row |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-30 01:07:06 | Re: cursors FOR UPDATE don't return most recent row |