Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: HOT synced with HEAD

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: HOT synced with HEAD
Date: 2007-09-16 19:16:11
Message-ID: 17986.1189970171@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So are you suggesting we go back to the earlier way of handling
> aborted tuples separately ? But then we can not do that by simply
> checking for !HeaptupleIsHotUpdated. There could be several aborted
> tuples at the end of the chain of which all but one are marked HotUpdated.
> Or are you suggesting we also check for XMIN_INVALID for detecting
> aborted tuples ?

Yeah.  As the code stands, anything that's XMIN_INVALID will be
considered not-HotUpdated (look at the macro...).  So far I've seen no
place where there is any value in following a HOT chain past such a
tuple --- do you see any?  Every descendant tuple must be XMIN_INVALID
as well ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-09-17 00:40:47
Subject: Re: invalidly encoded strings
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2007-09-16 18:42:23
Subject: Re: HOT synced with HEAD

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group