Re: SSI patch version 14

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Date: 2011-01-31 19:32:04
Message-ID: 4D46B9D4020000250003A043@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 07:26 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> And why are you reading the infomask directly? Do the existing
>>> visibility functions not suffice?
>>
>> It's possible we re-invented some code somewhere, but I'm not
>> clear on what code from this patch might use what existing
>> function. Could you provide specifics?
>
> In CheckForSerializableConflictOut(), it takes a boolean "valid".

Ah, now I see what you're talking about. Take a look at where that
"valid" flag come from -- the CheckForSerializableConflictOut are
all place right after calls to HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility. The
"valid" value is what HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility returned. Is it
possible that the hint bits will not be accurate right after that?
With that in mind, do you still see a problem with how things are
currently done?

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-01-31 19:54:37 Re: SSI patch version 14
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-01-31 19:26:27 Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"