Re: XMIN semantic at peril ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>
Cc: Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XMIN semantic at peril ?
Date: 2007-10-11 17:48:10
Message-ID: 2464.1192124890@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> writes:
> If the query is always based on a primary key + XMIN, and since
> vacuum is the only thing that sets FrozenTransactionId, would it be
> unsane to change the update to

> - update row with "... where pk=... and XMIN IN (old_xmin_from_read,
> FrozenTransactionId)

I wouldn't risk it, because that *would* fail in the case Karsten
mentioned of an update sequence taking so long that a concurrent
update got frozen.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-10-11 17:52:08 Re: preferred way to use PG_GETARG_BYTEA_P in SPI
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2007-10-11 17:18:58 Re: preferred way to use PG_GETARG_BYTEA_P in SPI