| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index |
| Date: | 2016-05-03 16:09:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa8kA1b_=Oq+t6bhLSw9rDng2dRpem5aqx2vQOOHQTiDQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Uh, I have no idea how this would be fixed if the PageLSN is zero. Do
>> you?
>
> Yes, I see three ways, the most obvious of which is what Amit
> suggested -- don't do early vacuum on a table which has a hash index.
What do you mean by "early VACUUM"? Amit suggested disabling
HOT-pruning, but HOT-pruning happens completely outside of VACUUM. It
also happens inside VACUUM, so if we disabled HOT pruning, how could
we VACUUM at all? Sorry, I am confused.
Doesn't this issue also affected indexes on any unlogged table?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-05-03 16:12:03 | Re: what to revert |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-03 16:07:51 | ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |