| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Wood, Dan" <hexpert(at)amazon(dot)com>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Wong, Yi Wen" <yiwong(at)amazon(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| Date: | 2017-11-10 00:19:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkrdpO-szZjr8tEWrcsv4J3QUkr8ZYJSNRn4s9a_qUbMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I don't follow you here. Why would REINDEXing make the rows that
>> should be dead disappear again, even for a short period of time?
>
> It's not the REINDEX that makes them reappear.
Of course. I was just trying to make sense of what you said.
> It's the second
> vacuum. The reindex part was about $user trying to fix the problem...
> As you need two vacuums with appropriate cutoffs to hit the "rows
> revive" problem, that'll often in practice not happen immediately.
This explanation clears things up, though.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-11-10 00:45:07 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-11-10 00:17:18 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-11-10 00:34:57 | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-11-10 00:17:18 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |