| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Date: | 2011-11-16 14:47:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYgXJARyXBBfc85dfKxdeTMLA5+wYQomvqBgZruerJ6_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
>> between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
>
> The dividing line is enormously unstable though. pgstattuple's idea of
> RecentGlobalXmin could even be significantly different from that of a
> concurrently running VACUUM. I can see the point of having VACUUM log
> what it did, but opinions from the peanut gallery aren't worth much.
Hmm, you have a point.
But as Yeb points out, it seems like we should at least try to be more
consistent about the terminology.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2011-11-16 14:50:21 | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-16 14:47:38 | Re: strict aliasing |