From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max freeze age query in docs |
Date: | 2013-09-02 18:26:57 |
Message-ID: | 20130902182657.GB11503@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-02 14:20:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/02/2013 01:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> >>Yes, possibly, but we can't do that now, but I would like to fix the
> >>docs now.
> >If you want this in 9.3.0 it needs to be committed in the next couple of
> >hours.
> >
> >FWIW, the idea seemed generally sane to me, but I'd suggest not depending
> >on reltoastrelid being zero when and only when there's no match.
> >Why not test whether t.oid IS NULL, instead?
> >
> >Or actually, code it like this
> >
> > GREATEST(age(c.relfrozenxid), age(t.relfrozenxid))
> >
> >and be done, as well as not having an ugly direct use of int4larger.
> >
> >
>
>
> OK, I'll do it that way. Working on it now.
I'd vote for c.relkind != 't' AND NOT c.relfrozenxid = 0; instead of
relkind = 'r' for the main relation, that way you'd include materialized
views and stuff.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-09-02 18:45:29 | Re: max freeze age query in docs |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-09-02 18:20:57 | Re: max freeze age query in docs |