| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: Computing the conflict xid for index page-level-vacuum on primary |
| Date: | 2018-12-14 18:39:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvFL-ynrPmqMF+QbxvNYTBpZ9dOWxtaFPKuOa3FV83qvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 4:43 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> This leads me to think that we possibly should move computation of the
> last removed xid from recovery to the primary, during the generation of
> the xl_btree_delete WAL record.
Do I understand correctly that we need this xid computation, because
we may delete some index tuples using kill_prior_tuple before we prune
corresponding heap tuples (which would be also replicated and cause
required conflict)? If so, then can we just give up with that? That
is before setting kill_prior_tuple = true, prune corresponding heap
tuples.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-12-14 18:40:08 | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-14 18:35:50 | Re: removal of dangling temp tables |