Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> Why don't we rewrite tuples with their existing xid in such cases?
>> The current state of affairs seem to me to be a pretty clear bug.
>
> No, it isn't --- the tuple is being modified by the ALTER command.
>
> regards, tom lane
I'm not quite sure what
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner writes:
>>> Why don't we rewrite tuples with their existing xid in such
>>> cases? The current state of affairs seem to me to be a pretty
>>> clear bug.
>>
>> No, it isn't --- the tuple is being modified by the ALTER
>> command.
>
> If a
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner writes:
>> Why don't we rewrite tuples with their existing xid in such
>> cases? The current state of affairs seem to me to be a pretty
>> clear bug.
>
> No, it isn't --- the tuple is being modified by the ALTER
> command.
If a REPEATABLE READ or SERIALIZABLE tr
Kevin Grittner writes:
> Why don't we rewrite tuples with their existing xid in such cases?
> The current state of affairs seem to me to be a pretty clear bug.
No, it isn't --- the tuple is being modified by the ALTER command.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-gener
Kevin Grittner-5 wrote
>> [ Examples shows that both SERIALIZABLE and REPEATABLE READ
>> transactions could see an empty table which was not empty as of
>> the point the snapshot was taken. For that matter, it was not
>> empty at any later point, either. ]
>
> Why don't we rewrite tuples with the
DT wrote:
> I'm reading code of ALTER TABLE, and I found when target table
> needs rewrite, tuple inserted into new heap uses current
> transaction's xid as xmin.
That sure sounds wrong to me.
> Does this behavior satisfy serializable isolation? I wrote some
> test cases:
>
> [ Examples shows
DT wrote
> Hi,
>
> I'm reading code of ALTER TABLE, and I found when target table needs
> rewrite, tuple inserted into new heap uses current transaction's xid as
> xmin. Does this behavior satisfy serializable isolation? I wrote some test
> cases:
> CREATE TABLE t1(a INT);CREATE TABLE t2(a INT);
Hi,
I'm reading code of ALTER TABLE, and I found when target table needs rewrite,
tuple inserted into new heap uses current transaction's xid as xmin. Does this
behavior satisfy serializable isolation? I wrote some test cases:
CREATE TABLE t1(a INT);CREATE TABLE t2(a INT);INSERT INTO t1 VALUES
