Re: advancing snapshot's xmin
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47ED0BB8.8030809@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: advancing snapshot's xmin
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: >>> As far as I can see, for the purposes of VACUUM we can remove any tuple >>> that was deleted after the old transaction's Xid but before that >>> transaction's Xmin (i.e. all of its live snapshots). This means we get >>> to ignore Xid in GetOldestXmin and in the TransactionXmin calculations >>> in GetSnapshotData. It would not surprise me, however, to find out that >>> I am overlooking something and this is incorrect. >> This seems entirely off-base to me. In particular, if a transaction >> has an XID then its XMIN will never be greater than that, so I don't >> even see how you figure the case will arise. > > My point exactly -- can we let the Xmin go past its Xid? You imply we > can't, but why? Everything < xmin is considered to be not running anymore. Other transactions would consider the still-alive transaction as aborted, and start setting hint bits etc. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: