| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(dot)postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tuple visibility within a single XID |
| Date: | 2015-04-08 02:24:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQWicnawYc-4Hbjwo+Agm5mr8336xxvGO9pB4xwethrYQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(dot)postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If another transaction T2 coming later than T1, and if we prune early,
> then T1 can suddenly hang on insertion waiting for T2 to complete. But
> does this violate any isolation rule?
Well, it means that you don't lock a row that you delete (and values
that appeared in that row if they're constrained by a unique index)
just because you happened to also insert that row. That would probably
break client code.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-08 02:24:49 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-04-08 02:16:48 | Re: pg_rewind and log messages |