"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So are you suggesting we go back to the earlier way of handling
> aborted tuples separately ? But then we can not do that by simply
> checking for !HeaptupleIsHotUpdated. There could be several aborted
> tuples at the end of the chain of which all but one are marked HotUpdated.
> Or are you suggesting we also check for XMIN_INVALID for detecting
> aborted tuples ?
Yeah. As the code stands, anything that's XMIN_INVALID will be
considered not-HotUpdated (look at the macro...). So far I've seen no
place where there is any value in following a HOT chain past such a
tuple --- do you see any? Every descendant tuple must be XMIN_INVALID
as well ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
