Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Date: 2001-11-23 01:26:27
Message-ID: 2156.1006478787@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> But could we not make it so that rollback will also reset xmax and cmax
> to 0.

We never have done that and I don't see why we should start.
(And no, I'm not sure that it'd be entirely safe; there are
concurrency/atomicity issues involved, because we do not
insist on getting exclusive lock to set the it's-dead-Jim
flag bit.)

We could make the user readout of xmax/cmax be zeroes if the flag
bits show they are invalid. But this really just begs the question
of what use they are to users in the first place. I can't see any;
and if we make them read as zeroes then they for sure won't have any.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-11-23 01:33:17 Re: Can't "EXTRACT" from a field?
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2001-11-22 22:30:19 Re: More FK patches