Re: [HACKERS] postgres inode q's

From: Bernard Frankpitt <frankpit(at)pop(dot)dn(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: bingram(at)cpsgroup(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres inode q's
Date: 1999-10-23 17:49:16
Message-ID: 3811F51C.B884AC7D@pop.dn.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> ................ So, as soon as any backend
> checks a tuple and sees that its inserting transaction did commit,
> it rewrites the tuple with a new state "INSERT KNOWN COMMITTED" (which
> is represented by inserting XID = 0 or some such). .........
>

The way concurrency is supported in PostgreSQL is really cool, and I
think not widely understood. The tuple uses flags stored in the
t_infomask field of the HeapTupleHeader structure to 'cache' the status
of the creating and deleting transactions for each tuple.

Check out backend/utils/time/tqual.c and include/utils/tqual.h for
the details of the algorithms. (Not recommended if you have been
drinking at all)

Ullman "Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, Vol 1" Has a
pretty good discussion of time based and lock based schemes for
concurrency control.

Bernie Frankpitt

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aaron J. Seigo 1999-10-23 17:54:40 Re: [ADMIN] Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (long message)
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-10-23 17:25:05 Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging (long message)