Tom Lane escribió:
> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 8/30/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I don't think that works --- what if the last tuple in the chain isn't
> >> committed good yet? If its inserter ultimately rolls back, you've
> >> indexed the wrong value.
> > I am confused. How could we get ShareLock on the relation while
> > there is some open transaction which has inserted a tuple in the
> > table ? (Of course, I am not considering the system tables here)
> Not if someone else releases lock before committing.
FWIW, a red flag raised for me here, though maybe it is irrelevant or
unimportant. Currently, VACUUM acquires an exclusive lock for
truncating the table. The lock is kept till commit. However I am
proposing that it be released before commit.
Now, VACUUM never inserts rows. But I don't claim I understand what's
going on here.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-08-30 23:24:36|
|Subject: Re: HOT patch - version 14 |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-08-30 21:44:16|
|Subject: Re: enum types and binary queries|