| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |
| Date: | 2008-03-28 15:05:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20080328150509.GO7464@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > As far as I can see, for the purposes of VACUUM we can remove any tuple
> > that was deleted after the old transaction's Xid but before that
> > transaction's Xmin (i.e. all of its live snapshots). This means we get
> > to ignore Xid in GetOldestXmin and in the TransactionXmin calculations
> > in GetSnapshotData. It would not surprise me, however, to find out that
> > I am overlooking something and this is incorrect.
>
> This seems entirely off-base to me. In particular, if a transaction
> has an XID then its XMIN will never be greater than that, so I don't
> even see how you figure the case will arise.
My point exactly -- can we let the Xmin go past its Xid? You imply we
can't, but why?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2008-03-28 15:09:44 | Re: Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-28 14:59:59 | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |