Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kuba Ouhrabka <kuba(at)comgate(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)
Date: 2004-11-04 16:36:48
Message-ID: 26222.1099586208@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kuba Ouhrabka <kuba(at)comgate(dot)cz> writes:
> The problem is fully described in thread I mentioned earlier, Tom's
> excellent explanation can be found here:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=cs&lr=&frame=right&th=5227028cb3449572&seekm=11390.1080964720%40sss.pgh.pa.us#link14

Oh, that thing. Well, my opinion has not changed since April --- I
don't think the problem justifies slowing down every transaction start.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kuba Ouhrabka 2004-11-04 16:45:28 Re: Vacuum and oldest xmin (again)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-11-04 16:19:12 Re: plans for bitmap indexes?