| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | hans wulf <lotu1(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
| Date: | 2011-03-10 17:17:14 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimOpjZ=aWy+OrfNegJOy+NTA9t_=oHH3Ry5uzO+@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:31 PM, hans wulf <lotu1(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> I don't know the postgres code, but I don't thing it is a big deal, not to care about consistancy. The code for executing such a query should be quite basic, because no MVCC-Stuff has to be done.
I remember I used to think this would be simple -- just return all
rows regardless of visibility.
However I later learned things were more complex than that. You
probably want to return the latest version of any row regardless of
whether it's committed but *not* return two or more copies of the same
row which would really make the results entirely meaningless. That
alone would make it prohibitively hard to do.
I think I remember issues with potentially running into old rows that
don't even match the current definition of the table. That would
potentially cause you to crash or output garbage. However offhand I
don't see how that would be possible so perhaps I'm misremembering
this issue.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-03-10 17:22:23 | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-03-10 17:00:08 | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-03-10 17:22:23 | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
| Previous Message | silly sad | 2011-03-10 17:15:34 | Re: Top five challenges |