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

Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
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 00:44:44
Message-ID: 5492.1009154684@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I don't think it's preferable either. However there's
> no problem unless there's an application which handle
> the tuples containing the t_ctid link.

What about READ COMMITTED mode?  EvalPlanQual uses the t_ctid field
to find the updated version of the row.  If the t_ctid is wrong,
you might get an elog(), or you might miss the row you should have
updated, or possibly you might update a row that you shouldn't have.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2001-12-24 01:04:47
Subject: Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2001-12-24 00:09:03
Subject: Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo

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