|From:||Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Костя Кузнецов <chapaev28(at)ya(dot)ru>|
|Subject:||Re: GiST VACUUM|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Thanks for clarification, now I understand these patches better.
> 25 июня 2019 г., в 13:10, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> написал(а):
>> Also, I did not understand this optimization:
>> + /*
>> + * We can skip this if the page was deleted so long ago, that no scan can possibly
>> + * still see it, even in a standby. One measure might be anything older than the
>> + * table's frozen-xid, but we don't have that at hand here. But anything older than
>> + * 2 billion, from the next XID, is surely old enough, because you would hit XID
>> + * wraparound at that point.
>> + */
>> + nextxid = ReadNextFullTransactionId();
>> + diff = U64FromFullTransactionId(nextxid) - U64FromFullTransactionId(latestRemovedXid);
>> + if (diff < 0x7fffffff)
>> + return;
>> Standby can be lagging months from primary, and, theoretically, close
>> the gap in one sudden WAL leap...
> It would still process the WAL one WAL record at a time, even if it's lagging months behind. It can't just jump over 2 billion XIDs.
I feel a little uncomfortable with number 0x7fffffff right in code.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
|Next Message||Juan José Santamaría Flecha||2019-06-25 10:00:45||Re: BUG #15858: could not stat file - over 4GB|
|Previous Message||Tomas Vondra||2019-06-25 09:18:19||Re: Choosing values for multivariate MCV lists|