| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting glitch in autovacuum |
| Date: | 2008-09-10 20:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20080910202733.GK4399@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Sorry, I got a bit confused there. The vacuum's intentional pruning
> will use its own OldestXmin variable, which is known current at the
> start of the vacuum (and I think there were even proposals to advance
> it more frequently than that). However, a vacuum could require some
> incidental system catalog fetches, which I think could result in
> prune operations based on RecentGlobalXmin on the catalog pages
> (cf index_getnext).
Hmm, right, and what Heikki said too.
> Anyway I think we are on the same page about the rest of the issues.
> Did you want to work on fixing them, or shall I?
Is this more or less what you had in mind?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| ensure-recentglobal.patch | text/x-diff | 10.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-10 20:30:10 | Re: Potential Join Performance Issue |
| Previous Message | Tom Raney | 2008-09-10 20:16:33 | Re: Planner question |