From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)reveredata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
Date: | 2003-03-19 18:25:23 |
Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E325187AE@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I see no concurrency problems. If two or more backends visit the same
> tuple, they either write the same value to the same position which
> doesn't hurt, or one sees the other's changes which is a good thing.
AFAIR, on multi-CPU platforms it's possible that second transaction could
see COMMITTED state but still old (subtrans id) in xmin: it's not
guaranteed that changes made on CPU1 (V1 was changed first, then V2 was
changed) will appear at the same order on CPU2 (V2 may come first, then V1).
Vadim
_____________________________________________________
Revere Data, LLC, formerly known as Sector Data, LLC, is not affiliated with
Sector, Inc., or SIAC.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2003-03-19 19:26:05 | string || NULL ambiguity |
Previous Message | greg | 2003-03-19 18:14:35 | Re: PostgreSQL flamage on Slashdot |