Simon Riggs wrote:
> This problem is solved by moving the wait (for all transactions in
> reference snapshot to finish) so that it is now between the first and
> second scans, as described.
> During the second Vscan we would prune each block, so the only remaining
> tuple in the block when the second scan sees it would be (10,30) and it
> would no longer be a HOT tuple - the index would have a pointer to it,
> so no new index pointer would be added. The pointer to (10,30) is the
> same pointer that was added in the first phase for the tuple (10,20).

The problem is that in the first phase, the pointer was inserted
with key=20 whereas now its changed to 30. So we need to delete the old
index entry and add a new one.




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to