From: | Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Locks on temp table and PREPARE |
Date: | 2009-06-03 20:50:46 |
Message-ID: | 4A26E226.1000706@frogthinker.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> True, but the problem is that the tuple might still be live to (some
> snapshots in) that transaction, so we can't inject a duplicate tuple
> without risking confusing it. In this particular case that isn't an
> issue because the transaction is done executing, but the tqual.c
> rules don't know that.
>
Please excuse my ignorance. I am not sure to get how the tuple could
still be live to some snapshots after the transaction has prepared. What
could still happen to objects that were only visible to a transaction
after it has prepared? An example would definitely help.
Is it possible in Postgres for a transaction to see an object that was
created inside another transaction before it commits (assuming at least
'read committed' of course)?
Thanks again,
Emmanuel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-03 20:50:49 | Improving the ngettext() patch |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-06-03 20:42:11 | Re: Plan time Improvement - 64bit bitmapset |