Re: SSI freezing bug - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: SSI freezing bug
Date
Msg-id 20131004102337.GL19661@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SSI freezing bug  (Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>)
Responses Re: SSI freezing bug  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2013-10-03 21:14:17 -0700, Dan Ports wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:19:49AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> > > IMHO it would be better to remove xmin from the lock key, and vacuum
> > > away the old predicate locks when the corresponding tuple is vacuumed.
> > > The xmin field is only required to handle the case that a tuple is
> > > vacuumed, and a new unrelated tuple is inserted to the same slot.
> > > Removing the lock when the tuple is removed fixes that.
> 
> This seems definitely safe: we need the predicate locks to determine if
> someone is modifying a tuple we read, and certainly if it's eligible
> for vacuum nobody's going to be modifying that tuple anymore.

But we're talking about freezing a tuple, not removing a dead tuple. I
don't see anything preventing modification of a frozen tuple. Right?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Haribabu kommi
Date:
Subject: Re: insert throw error when year field len > 4 for timestamptz datatype
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: SSI freezing bug