Re: Min Xid problem proposal

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Min Xid problem proposal
Date: 2005-12-09 18:57:22
Message-ID: 20051209185721.GA27513@surnet.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> I don't see any very good argument for allowing this mechanism to set
> minxid = FrozenXid in the first place. If there are only frozenXid in
> the table, set minxid = current XID. That eliminates the entire problem
> at a stroke.

Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch, which did exactly this.
Is it OK for applying?

(I'm using RecentXmin instead of current XID though, because a
currently-running transaction could insert tuples in the table I just
vacuumed.)

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-12-09 19:07:43 Re: Log of CREATE USER statement
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2005-12-09 18:41:35 Re: Log of CREATE USER statement