Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3BFCBE86.30FD79B2@tm.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Huh, a non-zero XMAX is fine. You mark the XMAX when you _think_ you > are updating it. It is only expired when the XMAX on the tuple is > committed. But http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?sql-syntax-columns.html claims: xmax The identity (transaction ID) of the deleting transaction, or zero for an undeleted tuple. In practice, thisis never nonzero for a visible tuple. cmax The command identifier within the deleting transaction, or zero. Again, this is never nonzero for a visibletuple. Which is IMHO good and useful behaviour, for example for all kinds of mirroring I also think that this kas historically been the behaviour and that this was broken sometime in not too distant past (i.e after postgres95 ;) by foreign keys and/or somesuch. Tom Lane once told me about a way to determine the visibility of a tuple by other means than [x|c][min|max] but I can't find/remember it anymore ;( ----------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: