| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UNDO and in-place update |
| Date: | 2016-11-28 14:50:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20161128145034.GA31951@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 09:19:06AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> At this point, index scan for value 2 will find index tuple of step-1
> (2) and will conclude 2,def as a right tuple, but actually, that is
> wrong as the step-1 (2) index tuple should not be visible to the user.
> Do you also this as a problem or am I missing something? If this a
> problem, then I think we need some form of delete marking system for
> the index, probably transaction visibility information as well.
Yes, very similar to the problems with WARM already discussed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-28 14:55:00 | Re: Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP] |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-11-28 14:49:01 | Re: Mail thread references in commits |