| From: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Date: | 2011-11-15 15:22:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4EC283BB.2080803@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2011-11-15 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga<yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
>> (name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
>> this review) are highly subjective and I wouldn't spend time on it unless
>> other people have the same opinion.
> I share your opinion; it's not obvious to me what this means either.
> I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead
> tuples?
>
The only case I could think of was that a still running repeatable read
transaction read them before they were deleted and committed by another
transaction.
--
Yeb Havinga
http://www.mgrid.net/
Mastering Medical Data
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-11-15 15:29:22 | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-15 15:16:54 | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |