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

bool
HeapTupleSatisfiesAny(HeapTupleHeader tuple)
{
	HeapTupleSatisfiesNow(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.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

• Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug at 2001-07-04 17:09:08 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug at 2001-07-05 01:04:59 from Tom Lane
• Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug at 2001-07-05 03:16:18 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

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