| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: brin index vacuum versus transaction snapshots |
| Date: | 2015-07-31 15:14:45 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jK8uJSHe4j7tjuQRQsthUawUx+-JMnoFnzXzCovRiA9fQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 31 July 2015 at 15:48, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Reread the thread.
I stand corrected.
> The error is being hit on a VACUUM command
> (which is not, of course in any explicit transaction).
>
Seems like VACUUM only ever needs a read-committed snapshot. Whether it
takes a read-committed or repeatable read makes no difference.
Does brin_summarize_new_values() need to track what it reads for
serializable transactions?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2015-07-31 15:56:20 | RequestAddinLWLocks(int n) |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-07-31 14:48:54 | Re: brin index vacuum versus transaction snapshots |