Henning, On 11/23/2012 03:17 PM, "Henning Mälzer" wrote: > Can somebody help me?
Sure, but you might get better answers on the -hackers mailing list. I'm redirecting there. The cluster-hackers one is pretty low volume and low subscribers, I think. > Question: > What would be the loss if i cut NON-HOT chain Pointers, meaning i set > t_ctid=t_self in the case where it points to a tuple on another page? READ COMMITTED would stop to work correctly in the face of concurrent transactions, I guess. See the fine manual: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-COMMITTED The problem essentially boils down to: READ COMMITTED transactions need to learn about tuples *newer* than what their snapshot would see. > I am working on a project based on "postgres (PostgreSQL) 8.5devel" with the > code from several master thesises befor me. Care to elaborate a bit? Can (part of) that code be released under an open license? Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
