| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Nick Barnes <nickbarnes01(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about RI checks |
| Date: | 2014-10-24 17:32:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ2==WsaRPZahnTkTR=f5625YXnrU7CohUsBO75Nv1HqA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> The only other option I see would be so teach the executor to check
> whether *any* snapshot between the transaction's snapshot and a current
> snapshot would see a different set of rows. Simply checking whether both
> the current snapshot and the transaction's snapshot see the same set isn't
> sufficient, per the counter-example in my other mail :-(
What about doing one scan using SnapshotAny and then testing each
returned row for visibility under both relevant snapshots? See
whether there is any tuple for which they disagree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-24 17:42:04 | Re: Typo fixes for pg_recvlogical documentation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-24 17:30:46 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |