Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo
Date
Msg-id 200201030553.g035rsj14062@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible bug in vacuum redo  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: ADD PRIMARY KEY and ADD UNIQUE
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pgcryto failures on freebsd/alpha