| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index |
| Date: | 2016-05-04 14:18:58 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsOJP0ev35KwcXWz25=ejZNcqs8jmNKvM5hgM_KLXVTCrA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune based on the
> newer XID unless the page LSN is guaranteed to advance whenever data
> is removed. Currently, we attempt to limit bloat in non-unlogged,
> non-catalog tables. You're saying we can instead attempt to limit
> bloat only in non-unlogged, non-catalog tables without hash indexes,
> and that will fix this issue. Am I right?
As a first cut, something like the attached.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| exclude-hash-indexes-from-sto.patch | text/x-diff | 4.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-05-04 14:31:28 | Re: 9.5.2: "sql" as reserved word? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-04 14:02:34 | Re: 9.5.2: "sql" as reserved word? |