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

Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo
Date: 2001-12-24 04:39:05
Message-ID: 3C26B169.1199F062@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

Yes.
 
> Probably true, but still mighty ugly.

Yes.
 
> Meanwhile, I guess I gotta look elsewhere for a theory to explain
> those reports of duplicate rows.  Oh well...

Great. Where is it ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-12-24 04:39:47
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the location of configuration files
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-12-24 04:06:30
Subject: Re: Announcement: libpkixpq 0.1 released

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