Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA(at)rki(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Date: 2001-11-22 16:25:47
Message-ID: 1146.1006446347@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> But
> http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?sql-syntax-columns.html

That documentation is in error (my fault). Current docs say

xmax

The identity (transaction ID) of the deleting transaction, or zero
for an undeleted tuple. It is possible for this field to
be nonzero in a visible tuple: that usually indicates that the
deleting transaction hasn't committed yet, or that an
attempted deletion was rolled back.

> I also think that this kas historically been the behaviour

No, it wasn't.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-11-22 16:28:55 Re: postgresql.conf (Proposed settings)
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2001-11-22 16:18:56 Re: Can't "EXTRACT" from a field?