Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:42:36 -0400
From: Joe <dev@freedomcircle.net>
Subject: Re: A long-running transaction
In-reply-to: <20070413114919.GA31083@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Message-id: <1176482556.782.83.camel@pampa>
Organization: Freedom Circle, LLC
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <461261AD.6060108@herakles.homelinux.org>
	<20070403201420.GB1519@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<461BBE33.9030807@herakles.homelinux.org>
	<20070410165523.GB20033@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<461C07A5.30000@herakles.homelinux.org>
	<20070411133407.GB22510@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<461CEF66.4010907@herakles.homelinux.org>
	<20070411154923.GA22771@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<461ED6C2.2010200@herakles.homelinux.org>
	<20070413114919.GA31083@phlogiston.dyndns.org>

Hi Andrew,

On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 07:49 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Because in the general case, you need the intermediate rows.  The
> problem is that you'd have to write a special piece of code to catch
> the case where nobody else can see the row that you're about to
> expire, and that test isn't free.  Therefore, you do it the same way
> any other row gets expired.

Just curious:  is there a way to defeat MVCC?  i.e., if you can lock the
database exclusively, there won't be any readers or writers?

Joe