| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |
| Date: | 2010-06-08 22:18:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1276035506.12489.4314.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 18:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, yes, I see what you're getting at now. There are two possible
> ways to do freeze the tuples and keep the xmin: we can either rely on
> the PD_ALL_VISIBLE page-level bit (as I previously proposed) or we can
> additionally have a HEAP_XMIN_FROZEN bit as you propose here. I am
> not sure which way is better.
Doing it at tuple level is more flexible and allows more aggressive
freezing. It also works better with existing tuple visibility code.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-06-08 22:20:12 | Re: How about closing some Open Items? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-08 22:03:32 | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |