| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian Pflug" <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Date: | 2007-09-10 19:13:23 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0709101213w478e5658jaf16aaaf256ab675@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On 9/10/07, Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe that risk could be lowered if instead of a flag, we stored the
> minimal global xmin needed to prune at least one tuple.
>
>
I like the idea. The question is whether the chances of a Prunable
page being looked up again and again in presence of a long
running transaction are high enough to justify adding 4 bytes
to page header.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-09-10 19:15:34 | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-09-10 18:19:12 | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |