Re: heap vacuum & cleanup locks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: heap vacuum & cleanup locks
Date: 2011-11-09 22:18:04
Message-ID: 21371.1320877084@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> As for what to do about all this, I think Tom's idea would work for
> good tuples, but the current freezing code can't handle dead tuples;
> it counts on those having been already removed.

I have not gone back to look at the code, but are you worried about the
fact that it doesn't consider replacing xmax with FrozenTransactionId?
Surely we could do that if we wanted. It just never seemed necessary
before --- but if vacuum is to be allowed to punt repeatedly on the same
page, maybe we do need to cover the case.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-11-09 22:20:56 Re: heap vacuum & cleanup locks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-11-09 22:12:46 Re: Cost estimates for parameterized paths