| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Date: | 2011-11-16 14:58:43 |
| Message-ID: | 22537.1321455523@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 2011-11-16 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The dividing line is enormously unstable though. pgstattuple's idea of
>> RecentGlobalXmin could even be significantly different from that of a
>> concurrently running VACUUM. I can see the point of having VACUUM log
>> what it did, but opinions from the peanut gallery aren't worth much.
> I don't understand your the last remark so I want to get it clear: I
> looked up peanut gallery on the wiki. Is 'opinion from the peanut
> gallery' meant to describe my comments as patch reviewer? I'd appreciate
> brutal honesty on this point.
No no no, sorry if you read that as a personal attack. I was trying to
point out that a process running pgstattuple does not have a value of
RecentGlobalXmin that should be considered authoritative --- it is only
a bystander, not the process that might do actual cleanup work.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-16 15:18:00 | Re: strict aliasing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-16 14:54:18 | Re: includeifexists in configuration file |