From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Alternative for vacuuming queue-like tables |
Date: | 2006-05-04 19:30:34 |
Message-ID: | 2831.1146771034@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> I'd actually been thinking about this recently, and had come up with the
> following half-baked ideas:
> Allow a transaction to specify exactly what tables it will be touching,
> perhaps as an extension to BEGIN. Should any action that transaction
> takes attempt to access a table not specified, throw an error.
> A possible variant on that would be to automatically determine at
> transaction start all the tables that would be accessed by that
> transaction.
> Once that list is available, vacuum should be able to use it to ignore
> any transactions that have promised not to touch whatever table it's
> vacuuming.
No, you missed my point entirely. The above would help not at all,
unless the restrictions were somehow propagated through XMIN
calculations, which seems impracticable. (Every backend calculate a
separate XMIN with respect to every table that's being mentioned by any
other backend? I don't think so...)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-04 19:42:29 | Re: how can i view deleted records? |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-04 19:27:22 | Re: dump Functions |