Henning,

On 11/23/2012 03:17 PM, "Henning Mälzer" wrote:
> Can somebody help me?

Sure, but you might get better answers on the -hackers mailing list. I'm
redirecting there. The cluster-hackers one is pretty low volume and low
subscribers, I think.

> Question:
> What would be the loss if i cut NON-HOT chain Pointers, meaning i set t_ctid=t_self in the case where it points to a tuple on another page?

READ COMMITTED would stop to work correctly in the face of concurrent
transactions, I guess. See the fine manual:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-COMMITTED

The problem essentially boils down to: READ COMMITTED transactions need
to learn about tuples *newer* than what their snapshot would see.

> I am working on a project based on "postgres (PostgreSQL) 8.5devel" with the code from several master thesises befor me.

Care to elaborate a bit? Can (part of) that code be released under an
open license?

Regards

Markus Wanner

In response to

• Question: Can i cut NON-HOT chain Pointers if there are no concurrent updates? at 2012-11-23 14:17:59 from Henning Mälzer

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2012-11-23 15:44:14
	Subject: Re: autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two
Previous:	From: Kevin Grittner	Date: 2012-11-23 15:03:30
	Subject: Re: Invalid optimization of VOLATILE function in WHERE clause?

pgsql-cluster-hackers by date

Next:	From: ning chan	Date: 2013-01-07 21:36:41
	Subject: pgsql replication feature
Previous:	From: Henning Mälzer	Date: 2012-11-23 14:17:59
	Subject: Question: Can i cut NON-HOT chain Pointers if there are no concurrent updates?