From: | Clark Evans <clark(dot)evans(at)manhattanproject(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Leon <leon(at)udmnet(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Joins and links |
Date: | 1999-07-06 16:28:45 |
Message-ID: | 37822EBD.36309123@manhattanproject.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Leon wrote:
> C> In this proposal, in addition to carrying a primary key
> C> for a referenced table, tuples in the referencing table
> C> will also have a place to record the physical address
> C> of each referenced tuple.
>
> I have read description carefully. I am afraid that MVCC
> will break your scheme, because referencing tuple must have
> a way to reach all versions of foreign updated tuple.
> If you update the referencing field, all other versions of
> foreign tuple are lost.
> It seems the only way to satisfy
> MVCC is to chain updated foreign tuples with subsequent
> VACUUM. That's because there is no need of indices, as soon
> as the need of them is only during VACUUM.
(look of puzzlement) Where did I go wrong with what
you are proposing? I'm not trying to invent my
own scheme... I'm trying to understand yours.
;) Clark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Leon | 1999-07-06 17:36:09 | Re[2]: [HACKERS] Fwd: Joins and links |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-06 15:04:59 | Re: Re[2]: [HACKERS] Fwd: Joins and links |