Re: Per-table freeze limit proposal
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Per-table freeze limit proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050915192134.GC28370@surnet.cl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Per-table freeze limit proposal (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Per-table freeze limit proposal
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:30:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > In fact this seems pretty easy to do. Add a field to pg_class, tell > > VACUUM to update it using the determined freezeLimit, and that's it. > > I think that it'd be worth fixing things so that the recorded value > is not the freeze cutoff value (as now), but the actual lowest > not-frozen XID present anywhere in the table. Cool. I wonder if the exact figure should be min(lowest non-frozen Xid in table, GetOldestXmin(false)) just in case a long-running transaction inserts a new tuple after the vacuum is done. Also GetOldestXmin should be the value used for empty tables. For shared relations, we'd use GetOldestXmin(true). Also, in light of this, it seems a bad idea to use the name "freezexid" for the pg_class column; I would name it relminxid or something like that (suggestions welcome). Not sure about renaming the pg_database column -- I don't see why not. -- Alvaro Herrera -- Valdivia, Chile Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com "La Primavera ha venido. Nadie sabe como ha sido" (A. Machado)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: