Kevin Grittner-5 wrote >> [ 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. In the ADD COLUMN scenario this results in the new column being visible when it technically should not be but that is not likely a huge concern. In the DROP COLUMN scenario you can no longer see data which should technically be present. I guess if you go to use that data and it is not present you'd get an error which is the technically correct response anyway so probably not a huge concern either. The idea of altering a record but not updating its xid sounds unclean but I'm not able to evaluate any potential pitfalls of such an action. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/ALTER-TABLE-transaction-isolation-problem-tp5769289p5769393.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
