From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
Date: | 2019-04-16 14:26:08 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYVGqmuAQQ-dDK7WswQ5TGee8=A1V9z0oe44UHXm43bYA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I'm not sure that's correct. If you do that, it'll end up in the
> > non-tupgone case, which might try to freeze a tuple that should've
> > been removed. Or am I confused?
>
> If we're failing to remove it, and it's below the desired freeze
> horizon, then we'd darn well better freeze it instead, no?
I don't know that that's safe. IIRC, the freeze code doesn't cope
nicely with being given a tuple that actually ought to have been
deleted. It'll just freeze it anyway, which is obviously bad.
Unless this has been changed since I last looked at it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-16 14:33:35 | Re: Calling pgstat_report_wait_end() before ereport(ERROR) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-16 13:37:42 | Re: Commit message / hash in commitfest page. |