|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2015-08-10 11:25:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 08/10/2015 11:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2015-08-10 07:26:29 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>So there is no conflict, but options 2) and 3) are completely redundant if
> >>we go for 5). After investigation, I now think 5) is achievable in 9.6, but
> >>if I am wrong for whatever reason, we have 2) as a backstop.
> >I don't think that's true. You can't ever delete the clog without
> >freezing. There's no need for anti-wraparound scans anymore, but you
> >still need to freeze once.
> What's your definition of freezing? As long as you remove all dead tuples,
> you can just leave the rest in place with their original XID+epoch in place,
> and assume that everything old enough is committed.
Hm. Right. -ENCOFFEE (I really ran out of beans). Sorry for that.
|Next Message||Alexander Korotkov||2015-08-10 12:06:44||Re: WIP: Rework access method interface|
|Previous Message||Marko Tiikkaja||2015-08-10 11:31:34||Re: expose confirmed_flush for replication slots|