Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACjxUsOto8NCS_TC=wr=jHVtz6V46A9OuOrPBymYEg-6Dkhi9Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index
Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Uh, I have no idea how this would be fixed if the PageLSN is zero. Do >>> you? >> >> Yes, I see three ways, the most obvious of which is what Amit >> suggested -- don't do early vacuum on a table which has a hash index. > > What do you mean by "early VACUUM"? Both vacuuming and hot-pruning adjust xmin based on calling TransactionIdLimitedForOldSnapshots(TransactionId recentXmin, Relation relation). I'm talking about having that function, if all other conditions for the override pass, checking for a hash index, too. > Amit suggested disabling > HOT-pruning, but HOT-pruning happens completely outside of VACUUM. It > also happens inside VACUUM, so if we disabled HOT pruning, how could > we VACUUM at all? Sorry, I am confused. I guess we were both talking a bit loosely since (as I mentioned above) the function that adjusts the xmin is called for a vacuum or pruning. He mentioned one and I mentioned the other, but it's all controlled by TransactionIdLimitedForOldSnapshots(). > Doesn't this issue also affected indexes on any unlogged table? That's been covered all along. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: