| From: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Read Uncommitted |
| Date: | 2008-05-26 20:33:30 |
| Message-ID: | 483B1E9A.9020506@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 13:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 16:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> If the data in a table never changes, why would VACUUM or HOT need to touch
>>>> it? The use case isn't clear to me.
>>> I guess the use-case is about a long read-write transaction doing
>>> read-only access to an update-only table and thus blocking vacuum on
>>> other tables.
>> ... in which case the proposed kluge would result in unstable,
>> unpredictable answers, so there is still no plausible use-case.
>
> Separate databases?
OldestXmin calculation only includes transactions in the same database,
except when vacuuming shared relations.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-05-26 20:39:05 | Re: Read Uncommitted |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-26 20:15:18 | Re: keyword list/ecpg |