| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Vicherek <honza(at)ied(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, dustin(at)spy(dot)net, pgsql-questions(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Show stopper ? (was: Re: "cruising" or "browsing" through tables using an index / ordering) |
| Date: | 1998-01-24 04:32:25 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.3.96.980124003112.28536m-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Jan Vicherek wrote:
> > You can put an index on the table, and embed a function inside the
> > engine to spin through the index, getting valid rows.
>
> Aha, this implies that in the index there are valid and non-valid rows.
> I guess those that are to be "valid" (no current transactions on that
> row) and the non-valid "those that are subject to an update lock /
> transaction".
There is no record level locking available at this point in time,
only table level. Bruce, just curious...this whole discussion...would it
be moot if we did have record level locking?
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-01-24 04:57:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Attn PG gurus / coders : New approach for ORDER BY ? |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-01-24 04:28:27 | Re: Attn PG gurus / coders : New approach for ORDER BY ? (was: Re: Show stopper ?) |