On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:45:53PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > My apologies if this has been discussed before. I went through the earlier > discussions, but its still very fuzzy to me. I am not able to construct a > case > where a tuple is DEAD (not RECENTLY_DEAD) and still there could be > a transaction need to follow the ctid pointer chain from its parent. Can > somebody help me to construct this scenario ?
I thought the classical example was a transaction that updated the same tuple multiple times before committing. Then the version prior to the transaction start isn't dead yet, but all but one of the versions created by the transaction will be dead (they were never visible by anybody else anyway). I beleive other such corner cases are transactions that have subtransactions that aborted after updating. But I'm not that knowledgable on MVCC to be sure about that. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <email@example.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
Description: Digital signature