Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have implemented this idea and it works for MVCC scans. However, I
>> think this might not work for non-MVCC scans. Consider a case where
>> in Process-1, hash scan has returned one row and before it could check
>> it's validity in heap, vacuum marks that tuple as dead and removed the
>> entry from heap and some new tuple has been placed at that offset in
>> heap.
> Oops, that's bad.
Do we care? Under what circumstances would a hash index be used for a
non-MVCC scan?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
