ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I think we can remove recently dead tuples even if non-serializable read-only
> transactions are still alive, because those transactions will not see older
> versions of tuples.
Surely this'd require having those transactions display exactly what
their current oldest-xmin is. We've talked about that before, and it
seems a good idea, but it requires a bit more infrastructure than is
there now --- we'd need some snapshot-management code that could keep
track of all live snapshots within each backend.
> Is it proper behavior? I worry about too conservative estimation
> in incrementing ShmemVariableCache->latestCompletedXid.
Too conservative is much better than too liberal, in this case
(and I'm as bleeding-heart liberal as they come ;-))
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2008-01-28 06:11:18|
|Subject: RFC: array_agg() per SQL:200n|
|Previous:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2008-01-28 05:05:53|
|Subject: Vacuum threshold and non-serializable read-only transaction|