Leon wrote:
> C> In this proposal, in addition to carrying a primary key
> C> for a referenced table, tuples in the referencing table
> C> will also have a place to record the physical address
> C> of each referenced tuple.
>
> I have read description carefully. I am afraid that MVCC
> will break your scheme, because referencing tuple must have
> a way to reach all versions of foreign updated tuple.
> If you update the referencing field, all other versions of
> foreign tuple are lost.
> It seems the only way to satisfy
> MVCC is to chain updated foreign tuples with subsequent
> VACUUM. That's because there is no need of indices, as soon
> as the need of them is only during VACUUM.
(look of puzzlement) Where did I go wrong with what
you are proposing? I'm not trying to invent my
own scheme... I'm trying to understand yours.
;) Clark