| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Date: | 2011-11-15 15:29:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1321370854-sup-9997@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
> > (name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
> > this review) are highly subjective and I wouldn't spend time on it unless
> > other people have the same opinion.
>
> I share your opinion; it's not obvious to me what this means either.
> I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead
> tuples?
They were deleted but there are transactions with older snapshots.
I think vacuum uses the term "nondeletable" or "nonremovable". Not sure
which one is less bad. Not being a native speaker, they all sound
horrible to me.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-11-15 15:36:44 | Re: ToDo: pg_backup - using a conditional DROP |
| Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2011-11-15 15:22:35 | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |