On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 14:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:55:46PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> We're holding the table lock and will continue to do so until end of
> >> transaction. No transaction with an earlier id will ever see the data we
> >> load because of the lock.
> > Suppose you load half the tuples and the plug is pulled. After
> > recovery, you have half-load of tuples that are visible to everyone.
> > This is a no-no.
> Simon is expecting that the loaded tuples are guaranteed to be erased
> (by table truncation) during recovery. As I just noted I'm unconvinced
> of the safety of doing truncations during recovery, so I'd prefer not
> to depend on that.
> The scenario I was thinking of was different: you load pre-frozen
> tuples, commit, and thereby release the table lock. Now the tuples
> are visible to transactions that started before you did; that's what
> violates MVCC.
Agreed. MVCC violation. OK, back to the drawing board.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oleg Bartunov||Date: 2005-06-01 20:29:57|
|Subject: Re: Google's Summer of Code ...|
|Previous:||From: Luke Lonergan||Date: 2005-06-01 19:40:31|
|Subject: Re: Consumer-grade vs enterprise-grade disk drives|