| From: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |
| Date: | 2011-11-16 14:50:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4EC3CDAD.7000207@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2011-11-16 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
>> between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
> The dividing line is enormously unstable though. pgstattuple's idea of
> RecentGlobalXmin could even be significantly different from that of a
> concurrently running VACUUM. I can see the point of having VACUUM log
> what it did, but opinions from the peanut gallery aren't worth much.
I don't understand your the last remark so I want to get it clear: I
looked up peanut gallery on the wiki. Is 'opinion from the peanut
gallery' meant to describe my comments as patch reviewer? I'd appreciate
brutal honesty on this point.
thanks
Yeb
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-16 14:54:18 | Re: includeifexists in configuration file |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-16 14:47:52 | Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring |