From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |
Date: | 2006-07-28 00:34:20 |
Message-ID: | 14676.1154046860@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> nonInVacuumXmin seems useless ... perhaps a vestige of some earlier
>> version of the computation?
> Hmm, not useless at all really -- only a bug of mine. Turns out the
> notInVacuumXmin stuff is essential, so I put it back.
Uh, why?
> I noticed something however -- in calculating the OldestXmin we always
> consider all DBs, even though there is a parameter for skipping backends
> not in the current DB -- this is because the Xmin we store in PGPROC is
> always computed using all backends. The allDbs parameter only allows us
> to skip the Xid of a transaction running elsewhere, but this is not very
> helpful because the Xmin of transactions running in the local DB will
> include those foreign Xids.
Yeah, this has been recognized for some time. However the overhead of
calculating local and global xmins in *every* transaction start is a
significant reason not to do it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Phil Frost | 2006-07-28 00:49:56 | Re: lastval exposes information that currval does not |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-07-28 00:08:08 | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-28 02:05:02 | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-07-28 00:08:08 | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |