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

Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug
Date: 2001-07-04 23:43:24
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > As for HeapTupleSatisfies() there seems to be another choise to
> > let HeapTupleSatisfiesAny() be equivalent to HeapTupleSatisfiesNow()
> > other than always returning true.
> Wouldn't that break the other uses of SnapshotAny? 

In theory no because HeapTupleSatisfies...() only touches
hint bits. What I mean is to implement a new function
HeapTupleSatisfiesAny() as

HeapTupleSatisfiesAny(HeapTupleHeader tuple)
	return true;

> I'm not sure
> it's what nbtree.c wants, either, because then the heap_getnext
> call wouldn't return recently-dead tuples at all.

nbtree.c has to see all(including dead) tuples and judge
if the tuples are alive, dead or removable via unified
time qualification.

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-05 01:04:59
Subject: Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-04 17:12:16
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE .. PRIMARY KEY quirk

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group