From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | "" <HMaelzer(at)buerotiger(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-cluster-hackers] Question: Can i cut NON-HOT chain Pointers if there are no concurrent updates? |
Date: | 2012-11-23 15:08:51 |
Message-ID: | 50AF9183.3010308@bluegap.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-cluster-hackers pgsql-hackers |
Henning,
On 11/23/2012 03:17 PM, "Henning Mälzer" wrote:
> Can somebody help me?
Sure, but you might get better answers on the -hackers mailing list. I'm
redirecting there. The cluster-hackers one is pretty low volume and low
subscribers, I think.
> Question:
> What would be the loss if i cut NON-HOT chain Pointers, meaning i set t_ctid=t_self in the case where it points to a tuple on another page?
READ COMMITTED would stop to work correctly in the face of concurrent
transactions, I guess. See the fine manual:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-COMMITTED
The problem essentially boils down to: READ COMMITTED transactions need
to learn about tuples *newer* than what their snapshot would see.
> I am working on a project based on "postgres (PostgreSQL) 8.5devel" with the code from several master thesises befor me.
Care to elaborate a bit? Can (part of) that code be released under an
open license?
Regards
Markus Wanner
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ning chan | 2013-01-07 21:36:41 | pgsql replication feature |
Previous Message | Henning Mälzer | 2012-11-23 14:17:59 | Question: Can i cut NON-HOT chain Pointers if there are no concurrent updates? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-11-23 15:44:14 | Re: autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-11-23 15:03:30 | Re: Invalid optimization of VOLATILE function in WHERE clause? |