From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: Avoid endless futile table locks in vacuuming. |
Date: | 2015-12-30 19:17:05 |
Message-ID: | 22168.1451503025@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Dec 29, 2015 4:47 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Uh, isn't that what my patch is doing?
> My reading was it does that only if there are no tuples that could be
> frozen. If there are tuples that could be frozen, it actually does
> the freezing, even though that is not necessary unless scan_all is
> true.
Ah, now I see.
> So like the attached, although it is a bit weird to call
> lazy_check_needs_freeze if , under !scan_all, we don't actually care
> about whether it needs freezing but only the hastup.
True, but this is such a corner case that it doesn't seem worth expending
additional code to have a special-purpose page scan for it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-12-30 19:28:07 | Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-30 19:13:09 | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |