Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention
Date: 2007-07-31 15:09:59
Message-ID: 8EE9969E-E9EF-4C7F-938E-7B48C8392DBB@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I think we might need additional "freezing-xmax" operations to  
>>>> avoid
>>>> XID-wraparound in the first path of vacuum, though it hardly  
>>>> occurs.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow.  Can you elaborate?  Do you mean storing a
>>> separate relfrozenxmax for each table or something like that?
>>
>> We need to work around wraparound of xmax in dead tuples. If we  
>> miss to
>> vacuum them and XID is wrapped, we cannot remove them until the next
>> XID-wraparound, because we treat them to be deleted in the *future*.
>
> Oh, but this should not be a problem, because a tuple is either frozen
> or removed completely -- xmax cannot precede xmin.

What if it's frozen, then deleted, and then we wrap on xmax? Wouldn't  
that make the tuple re-appear?
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-07-31 15:25:42
Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-07-31 13:55:31
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ascii() for utf8

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group