On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 23:13 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Hmmm, my earlier code took xmax only if xmax > xmin. That was wrong;
> > what I have now is better, but your point is there may be an even better
> > truth. I'll think on that a little more.
I remember that I thought some more on this and decided that I couldn't
see a problem. I also see I didn't update the list to say that.
> I guess the problem case here is something like:
>
> 1. T1 begins. T1 writes a tuple A (so it gets an XID).
> 2. T2 begins. T2 writes a tuple B (so it gets a later XID).
> 3. T1 takes a new snapshot that can see B and deletes B.
> 4. T2 commits.
> 5. T1 commits.
How is step (3) possible before step (4)?
There are later errors in your example also.
It's possible that that's all wrong because of how my head is feeling,
if so please explain long hand so I don't have to think too much.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services