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.
> 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:
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
In response to
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
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