| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |
| Date: | 2006-07-28 13:56:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20070.1154094988@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, why?
> Because it's used to determine the Xmin that our vacuum will use. If
> there is a transaction whose Xmin calculation included the Xid of a
> transaction running vacuum, we have gained nothing from directly
> excluding said vacuum's Xid, because it will affect us anyway indirectly
> via that transaction's Xmin.
But the patch changes things so that *everyone* excludes the vacuum from
their xmin. Or at least I thought that was the plan.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2006-07-28 13:57:14 | plperl and refcursor? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-28 13:47:38 | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-07-28 14:03:31 | Re: [HACKERS] pgstattuple extension for indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-28 13:47:38 | Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch |