From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Triggered Data Change check |
Date: | 2001-11-12 03:06:49 |
Message-ID: | 3BEF3CC9.836C5FC5@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > Well, I wonder if the check is so weak as to be fairly useless in the
> > first place really, even if applied to the statement as opposed to the
> > transaction.
>
> Looking back at our discussion around 24-Oct, I recall that I was
> leaning to the idea that the correct interpretation of the spec's
> "triggered data change" rule is that it prohibits scenarios that are
> impossible anyway under MVCC, because of the MVCC tuple visibility
> rules.
Strictly speaking MVCC is only for read-only queries.
Even under MVCC, update, delete and select .. for update have
to see the newest tuples. Constraints shouldn't ignore the
update/delete operations in the future from MVCC POV.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-12 03:11:26 | Re: Triggered Data Change check |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-12 02:43:56 | Re: fts.postgresql.org problem ! still no routing |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-12 03:11:26 | Re: Triggered Data Change check |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-12 02:36:47 | Re: Patch for Makefile race against current cvs |