From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards |
Date: | 2018-04-27 17:38:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaG1Zjg1KLUX1WfxktNEu4Q=Zxjman=X5fTJ1ErTDVxvw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Gierth
<andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Robert> One idea that occurred to me is to somehow record -- I guess in
> Robert> pg_class using non-transactional updates -- the last cutoff XID
> Robert> used to vacuum any given table. Then we could just make a rule
> Robert> that you can't vacuum the TOAST table with an XID that's newer
> Robert> than the last one used for the main table. That would preserve
> Robert> the property that you can vacuum the tables separately while
> Robert> avoiding dangling pointers. But that's obviously not
> Robert> back-patchable,
>
> The suggestion made previously (in a historical thread) was to use an
> entry in the reloptions field for this, at least in back branches. It
> would be necessary for vacuum to add the entry initially in a normal
> transactional update, after which it could be updated inplace.
Yeah, I suppose. Sounds pretty rickety to me, though. Maybe I'm just
a pessimist.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kefan Yang | 2018-04-27 18:20:59 | RE: GSoC 2018: Sorting Algorithm and Benchmarking |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-27 17:37:32 | Re: obsoleting plpython2u and defaulting plpythonu to plpython3u |