| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing CONCURRENT VACUUM (Was: Release notes for |
| Date: | 2005-08-17 20:58:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1124312299.31798.120.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On K, 2005-08-17 at 16:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> > On K, 2005-08-17 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> While testing this I realized that it does not in fact work as
> >> advertised. It will only exclude long-running VACUUMs from other
> >> VACUUMs' OldestXmin if *all* the transactions in the system are lazy
> >> VACUUMs. If there is even one regular transaction in the system,
> >> that transaction will include the VACUUMs in its MyProc->xmin, and
> >> thence GetOldestXmin will have to include them in its result.
>
> > Only if these regular transactions are running in SERIALIZABLE isolation
> > level, else MyProc->xmin is not set inside GetSnapshotData.
>
> Better read the code again. The first snap in *any* transaction sets
> MyProc->xmin.
Can't find the place :(
Could you point to the file / function that does this.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-17 21:17:47 | Re: Crash while trying to log in with nonexistent role |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-08-17 20:50:53 | Re: do we need inet_ntop check? |