Re: SSI freezing bug
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SSI freezing bug |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131004102337.GL19661@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SSI freezing bug (Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: SSI freezing bug
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-03 21:14:17 -0700, Dan Ports wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:19:49AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: > > > IMHO it would be better to remove xmin from the lock key, and vacuum > > > away the old predicate locks when the corresponding tuple is vacuumed. > > > The xmin field is only required to handle the case that a tuple is > > > vacuumed, and a new unrelated tuple is inserted to the same slot. > > > Removing the lock when the tuple is removed fixes that. > > This seems definitely safe: we need the predicate locks to determine if > someone is modifying a tuple we read, and certainly if it's eligible > for vacuum nobody's going to be modifying that tuple anymore. But we're talking about freezing a tuple, not removing a dead tuple. I don't see anything preventing modification of a frozen tuple. Right? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: