| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Date: | 2024-04-25 23:57:19 |
| Message-ID: | 4027183.1714089439@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Hmm, is that actually true? There's no more reason to think a tuple
> in a temp table is old enough to be visible to all other sessions
> than one in any other table. It could be all right if we had a
> special-case rule for setting all-visible in temp tables. Which
> indeed I thought we had, but I can't find any evidence of that in
> vacuumlazy.c, nor did a trawl of the commit log turn up anything
> promising. Am I just looking in the wrong place?
Ah, never mind that --- I must be looking in the wrong place.
Direct experimentation proves that VACUUM will set all-visible bits
for temp tables even in the presence of concurrent transactions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-26 00:01:46 | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |
| Previous Message | Chris Cleveland | 2024-04-25 23:36:58 | Index access method not receiving an orderbys ScanKey |