Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Date
Msg-id 3BFD4E9F.7070906@tm.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
List pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
>
>>But
>>http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?sql-syntax-columns.html
>>
>
>That documentation is in error (my fault).  Current docs say
>
>xmax
>
>     The identity (transaction ID) of the deleting transaction, or zero
>     for an undeleted tuple. It is possible for this field to 
>     be nonzero in a visible tuple: that usually indicates that the
>     deleting transaction hasn't committed yet,
>
That seems reasonable

> or that an attempted deletion was rolled back. 
>
But could we not make it so that rollback will also reset xmax and cmax 
to 0.
It should be quite cheap to do so as it's on the same page with the 
commit bits ?

The meaning "last transaction that attempted to delete this tuple" seems 
somewhat weird

>>I also think that this kas historically been the behaviour 
>>
>No, it wasn't.
>
Are you sure that it was a bug not in code but in docs ?

---------------
Hannu




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Can't "EXTRACT" from a field?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)