Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:01:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > Wouldn't the original proposal that had a state machine handle this?
> > IIRC the original idea was:
>
> > new tuple -> known good -> possibly dead -> known dead
>
> Only if you disallow the transition from possibly dead back to known
> good, which strikes me as a rather large disadvantage. Failed UPDATEs
> aren't so uncommon that it's okay to have one permanently disable the
> optimization.

Actually, I guess I wasn't understanding the problem to begin with.
You'd never go from new tuple to known good while the transaction that
created the tuple was in-flight, right? If that's the case, I'm not sure
where there's a race condition. You can't delete a tuple that hasn't
been committed, right?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"