From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug |
Date: | 2001-07-04 23:43:24 |
Message-ID: | 3B43AA1C.F0A62AA1@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > As for HeapTupleSatisfies() there seems to be another choise to
> > let HeapTupleSatisfiesAny() be equivalent to HeapTupleSatisfiesNow()
> > other than always returning true.
>
> Wouldn't that break the other uses of SnapshotAny?
In theory no because HeapTupleSatisfies...() only touches
hint bits. What I mean is to implement a new function
HeapTupleSatisfiesAny() as
bool
HeapTupleSatisfiesAny(HeapTupleHeader tuple)
{
HeapTupleSatisfiesNow(tuple);
return true;
}
.
> I'm not sure
> it's what nbtree.c wants, either, because then the heap_getnext
> call wouldn't return recently-dead tuples at all.
>
nbtree.c has to see all(including dead) tuples and judge
if the tuples are alive, dead or removable via unified
time qualification.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-05 01:04:59 | Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-04 17:12:16 | Re: CREATE TABLE .. PRIMARY KEY quirk |