From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |
Date: | 2006-07-28 13:34:27 |
Message-ID: | 200607281334.k6SDYR012849@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> ?hel kenal p?eval, N, 2006-07-27 kell 22:05, kirjutas Bruce Momjian:
> > Another idea Jan had today was whether we could vacuum more rows if a
> > long-running backend is in serializable mode, like pg_dump.
>
> I don't see how this gives us ability to vacuum more rows, as the
> snapshot of a serializable transaction is the oldest one.
Good question. Imagine you have a serializable transaction like
pg_dump, and then you have lots of newer transactions. If pg_dump is
xid=12, and all the new transactions start at xid=30, any row created
and expired between 12 and 30 can be removed because they are not
visible. For a use case, imagine an UPDATE chain where a rows was
created by x=15 and expired by xid=19. Right now, we don't remove that
row, though we could.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-28 13:47:38 | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-28 13:31:02 | Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-07-28 13:36:18 | regression tests for guc SET |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-28 13:31:02 | Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes |