Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > In READ COMMITTED mode, an app searches valid tuples first
> > using the snapshot taken when the query started. It never
> > searches already updated(to newer ones) and committed tuples
> > at the point when the query started. Essentially t_ctid is
> > only needed by the concurrently running backends.
> 
> [ thinks for awhile ]  I see: you're saying that t_ctid is only
> used by transactions that are concurrent with the deleting transaction,
> so if there's a database crash there's no need to restore t_ctid.
> 
> Probably true, but still mighty ugly.
> 
> Meanwhile, I guess I gotta look elsewhere for a theory to explain
> those reports of duplicate rows.  Oh well...

Can someone document this in the sources somewhere?  I am not sure how
to do it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

• Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo at 2001-12-24 01:28:04 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2002-01-03 06:11:14
	Subject: Re: Status on RC1?
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2002-01-03 05:39:34
	Subject: Re: ADD PRIMARY KEY and ADD UNIQUE