From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | devik(at)cdi(dot)cz |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Unneccessary cmax in heap tuple ? |
Date: | 2000-10-25 10:32:52 |
Message-ID: | 39F6B6D4.7F066505@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
devik(at)cdi(dot)cz wrote:
> > > Why is there cmax in tuple ? cxxx is used to determine
> > > if tuple was inserted/deleted by current command or
> > > past command. Because one command can't both insert
> > > and delete the same tuple, only something like "cupd"
> > > might be needed and flag which tells you whether cupd
> > > is time of insert or delete. This saves 4byte from
> > > header ..
> >
> > If a tuple was inserted and updated in current transaction,
> > how could we judge if the tuple was valid for a given
> > ScanCommandId ?
> > However there could be other improvements.
>
> Ahh I did not know that there is need to test tuple for
> validity for some past cid. I thought that we only need
> to know whether tuple has been updated by current cid
> to ensure that it will not be scanned again in the same
> cid... Where am I wrong ?
For example,INSENSITIVE cursors(though not implemented) ?
INSENSITIVE cursors see changes made by neither other
backends nor the backend itself.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2000-10-25 10:46:56 | Re: looks like we forgot something... |
Previous Message | Holger Klawitter | 2000-10-25 09:54:17 | Re: latest version? |