On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: >> On 1 August 2011 17:49, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Ummm ... I only read the data structure comments, not the code, but I >>> don't see where you store the second CTID for an update event? > >> Ah yes, I forgot to mention that bit. I'm using >> &(tuple1.t_data->t_ctid) to get the second CTID from the old tuple. Is >> that safe? > > Hmmmm ... not sure. It seems a bit scary, but on the other hand we > should be able to assume that the updating subtransaction hasn't been > rolled back (else surely we shouldn't be firing the trigger). So in > principle it seems like the t_ctid link can't have been replaced. > This will foreclose any ideas about collapsing t_ctid link chains, > if anyone had it in mind to do that.
Don't we already do that when pruning HOT chains? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
