Re: Eliminate redundant tuple visibility check in vacuum

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Eliminate redundant tuple visibility check in vacuum
Date: 2023-10-02 16:04:31
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobdr_2s09sJkZ-BZL3woZpQJrnkjN3-b1E0GpHEiur+6w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 1:02 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> The only thought I have is that it might be worth to amend the comment in
> lazy_scan_prune() to mention that such a tuple won't need to be frozen,
> because it was visible to another session when vacuum started.

I revised the comment a bit, incorporating that language, and committed.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-10-02 17:24:48 Re: [PATCH] Clarify the behavior of the system when approaching XID wraparound
Previous Message David Christensen 2023-10-02 15:39:28 Re: Initdb-time block size specification