Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables
Date: 2020-09-08 19:24:54
Message-ID: 1829941.1599593094@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> But now I do wonder why we need to know whether the command is top level
> or not? Why isn't the correct thing to instead look at what the current
> backend's xmin is? Seems like you could just replace
> *oldestXmin = XidFromFullTransactionId(ReadNextFullTransactionId());
> with
> *oldestXmin = MyProc->xmin;
> Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(*oldestXmin));

Ummm ... since VACUUM doesn't run inside a transaction, it won't be
advertising an xmin will it?

Maybe you could make something like this work, but I think it'd still
have to treat CLUSTER as a special case. Not sure it's worth it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Coleman 2020-09-08 19:25:41 Re: Binary search in ScalarArrayOpExpr for OR'd constant arrays
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-09-08 19:19:01 Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData()