| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(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 14:59:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3803.1206716399@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-03-28 15:05:09 | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |
| Previous Message | Suresh | 2008-03-28 14:54:03 | segfault in locking code |