From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo |
Date: | 2002-01-03 05:53:54 |
Message-ID: | 200201030553.g035rsj14062@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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.
>
> Probably true, but still mighty ugly.
>
> Meanwhile, I guess I gotta look elsewhere for a theory to explain
> those reports of duplicate rows. Oh well...
Can someone document this in the sources somewhere? I am not sure how
to do it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-03 06:11:14 | Re: Status on RC1? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-03 05:39:34 | Re: ADD PRIMARY KEY and ADD UNIQUE |