Re: Strang behaviour SELECT ... LIMIT n FOR UPDATE

[Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>]

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Daniel Caune" <daniel(dot)caune(at)ubisoft(dot)com> writes:
> > It seems that, in certain condition, row (199,84) is shadowing row
> > (3702,85);
> 
> This would be the expected behavior if row (199,84) were an updated
> version of row (3702,85), but you couldn't see it yet in your current
> transaction snapshot.  A plain SELECT would show the older version
> (the current one according to the snapshot) while SELECT FOR UPDATE
> would show the newest committed version.

Hmm.  We've been studying a case on one customer where xmin/xmax seem to
be corrupted.  It has had ups and downs because I have my doubts about
their storage system, but I'm not completely sure that it can be really
blamed.

This is on 8.1.10.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile   ICBM: S 39º 49' 18.1", W 73º 13' 56.4"
Major Fambrough: You wish to see the frontier?
John Dunbar: Yes sir, before it's gone.