From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(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 15:25:03 |
Message-ID: | 20080328152503.GQ7464@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Everything < xmin is considered to be not running anymore. Other
> transactions would consider the still-alive transaction as aborted, and
> start setting hint bits etc.
Okay. So let's say we invent another TransactionId counter -- we keep
Xmin for the current purposes, and the other counter keeps track of
snapshots ignoring Xid. This new counter could be used by VACUUM to
trim dead tuples.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2008-03-28 15:33:42 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-03-28 15:22:25 | Re: Prereading using posix_fadvise (was Re: Commitfest patches) |