| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |
| Date: | 2010-12-01 16:43:39 |
| Message-ID: | 17527.1291221819@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm, actually, if we're willing to believe PD_ALL_VISIBLE in the page
> header over the xmin/xmax on the tuples, we could simply not bother
> doing anti-wraparound vacuums for pages that have the flag set. I'm not
> sure what changes that would require outside heapam.c, as we'd have to
> be careful to not trust the xmin/xmax if the flag was set.
That seems pretty ugly/dangerous. If we're going to try to do something
here, I much prefer Robert's approach of marking each tuple in the tuple
header.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-01 16:44:12 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-01 16:40:46 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |