Re: Not HOT enough
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Not HOT enough |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nM+gk2DEXGmTJtjpFtBuH8BGz3MTk1YL+GHEsCXqsXZQ_Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Not HOT enough (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Not HOT enough
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Some time ago, I changed GetOldestXmin() to ignore procs in other >> databases resulting in a potentially later xmin. >> >> GetSnapshotData() was not touched when that happened, even though the >> comments say "...This is the same computation done by >> GetOldestXmin(true, true)." The transam/README file says it stronger >> "GetSnapshotData also performs an oldest-xmin calculation (which had >> better >> match GetOldestXmin's)". Doh. >> >> As a result, VACUUM ignores procs in other databases, whereas HOT does >> not. That means we aren't cleaning up as much as we could do when >> running multiple databases. If its OK for VACUUM, then it must be OK >> for HOT cleanup also. >> >> Attached patch ignores procs in other databases during >> GetSnapshotData() when IsMVCCSnapshot(), using similar coding to >> GetOldestXmin(). >> >> Any doubters? > > I think this is unsafe for shared catalogs. I think so too. Thats why it uses IsMVCCSnapshot() to confirm when it is safe to do so. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: