On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> > Why not tell people to use SnapshotDirty if they need a
>> > not-guaranteed-consistent result? At least then it's pretty obvious
>> > that you're getting some randomness in with your news.
>
>> On further reflection, I think perhaps pgrowlocks should just register
>> a fresh MVCC snapshot and use that. Using SnapshotDirty would return
>> TIDs of unseen tuples, which does not seem to be what is wanted there.
>
> I think seeing otherwise invisible rows is useful in pgrowlocks. It
> helps observe the effects on tuples written by concurrent transactions
> during experimentation. But then, maybe this functionality belongs in
> pageinspect instead.
It does seem like it should be useful, at least as an option. But I
feel like changing that ought to be separate from getting rid of
SnapshotNow. It seems like too big of a behavior change to pass off
as a harmless tweak.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
