Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200201030553.g035rsj14062@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > In READ COMMITTED mode, an app searches valid tuples first > > using the snapshot taken when the query started. It never > > searches already updated(to newer ones) and committed tuples > > at the point when the query started. Essentially t_ctid is > > only needed by the concurrently running backends. > > [ thinks for awhile ] I see: you're saying that t_ctid is only > used by transactions that are concurrent with the deleting transaction, > so if there's a database crash there's no need to restore t_ctid. > > Probably true, but still mighty ugly. > > Meanwhile, I guess I gotta look elsewhere for a theory to explain > those reports of duplicate rows. Oh well... Can someone document this in the sources somewhere? I am not sure how to do it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: