From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: The corresponding relminxid patch; try 1 |
Date: | 2006-06-12 01:21:16 |
Message-ID: | 28916.1150075276@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> No, actually it's correct. The point of that comment is that if the
> source database is frozen, then all XIDs appearing inside both databases
> (source and newly created) are frozen. So it's possible that the row in
> pg_database is frozen as well. But because we are creating a new row in
> pg_database, it's not really frozen any longer; so we change the
> pg_database fields in the new row to match.
No, this only says that pg_database has to be unfrozen. If the source
DB is frozen then the clone is frozen too.
>> The changes in vacuum.c are far too extensive to review meaningfully.
>> What did you do, and did it really need to touch so much code?
> Yeah, they are extensive. ...
> Maybe I should take a stab at making incremental patches instead of
> doing everything in one patch. This way it would be easier to review
> for correctness (and I'd be more confident that it is actually correct
> as well).
Please. I've got no confidence that I see what's going on there.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-12 01:26:19 | Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-12 01:16:12 | Re: The corresponding relminxid patch; try 1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-12 01:26:19 | Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-12 01:16:12 | Re: The corresponding relminxid patch; try 1 |