Re: Read uncommitted ever possible?
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimOpjZ=aWy+OrfNegJOy+NTA9t_=oHH3Ry5uzO+@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Read uncommitted ever possible? ("hans wulf" <lotu1@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:31 PM, hans wulf <lotu1@gmx.net> wrote: > I don't know the postgres code, but I don't thing it is a big deal, not to care about consistancy. The code for executingsuch a query should be quite basic, because no MVCC-Stuff has to be done. I remember I used to think this would be simple -- just return all rows regardless of visibility. However I later learned things were more complex than that. You probably want to return the latest version of any row regardless of whether it's committed but *not* return two or more copies of the same row which would really make the results entirely meaningless. That alone would make it prohibitively hard to do. I think I remember issues with potentially running into old rows that don't even match the current definition of the table. That would potentially cause you to crash or output garbage. However offhand I don't see how that would be possible so perhaps I'm misremembering this issue. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: