| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: possible row locking bug in 7.0.3 & 7.1 |
| Date: | 2001-03-30 04:16:16 |
| Message-ID: | 3AC40890.399F5102@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Philip Warner wrote:
>
> At 19:14 29/03/01 -0800, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> >> >Reported problem is caused by bug (only one tuple version must be
> >> >returned by SELECT) and this is way to fix it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I assume this is not possible in 7.1?
> >
> >Just looked in heapam.c - I can fix it in two hours.
> >The question is - should we do this now?
> >Comments?
>
> It's a bug; how confident are you of the fix?
>
I doubt if it's a bug of SELECT. Well what
'concurrent UPDATE then SELECT FOR UPDATE +
SELECT' return ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew | 2001-03-30 04:56:19 | RE: User administration tool |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-03-30 04:02:28 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: possible row locking bug in 7.0.3 & 7.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-03-30 05:17:50 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: possible row locking bug in 7.0.3 & 7.1 |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-03-30 04:02:28 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: possible row locking bug in 7.0.3 & 7.1 |