| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyle Kingsbury <aphyr(at)jepsen(dot)io> |
| Subject: | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |
| Date: | 2020-06-09 02:07:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzmiwy9RD9rgYitzewtgriNtjgytxki96h4R-aq19dTmcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:01 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Right, the only change was to move things around a bit to suport new
> table AMs. Speaking of which, it looks like the new comment atop
> CheckForSerializableConflictOut() could use some adjustment. It says
> "A table AM is reading a tuple that has been modified. After
> determining that it is visible to us, it should call this function..."
> but it seems the truth is a bit more complicated than that.
Right. I think that you can go ahead and change it without further input here.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-06-09 02:12:05 | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-06-09 02:00:58 | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |