DT <kurt023@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm reading code of ALTER TABLE, and I found when target table > needs rewrite, tuple inserted into new heap uses current > transaction's xid as xmin. That sure sounds wrong to me. > Does this behavior satisfy serializable isolation? I wrote some > test cases: > > [ Examples shows that both SERIALIZABLE and REPEATABLE READ > transactions could see an empty table which was not empty as of > the point the snapshot was taken. For that matter, it was not > empty at any later point, either. ] Why don't we rewrite tuples with their existing xid in such cases? The current state of affairs seem to me to be a pretty clear bug. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
