Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."
От | Ashutosh Sharma |
---|---|
Тема | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAE9k0P=kvGJh0g8-tvv7tzdjFOanhsoxLZhcPAyYLquhWU1EwA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." (Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:40 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> * Should any of the other tables in the test be converted to temp? > > > > > Are you trying to say that we can achieve the things being done in > > > test-case 1 and 2 by having a single temp table and we should aim for > > > it because it will make the test-case more efficient and easy to > > > maintain? > > > > Well, I'm just looking at the comment that says the reason for the > > begin/rollback structure is to keep autovacuum's hands off the table. > > In most if not all of the other places where we need that, the preferred > > method is to make the table temp or mark it with (autovacuum = off). > > While this way isn't wrong exactly, nor inefficient, it does seem > > a little restrictive. For instance, you can't easily test cases that > > involve intentional errors. > > > > Another point is that we have a few optimizations that apply to tables > > created in the current transaction. I'm not sure whether any of them > > would fire in this test case, but if they do (now or in the future) > > that might mean you aren't testing the usual scenario for use of > > pg_surgery, which is surely not going to be a new-in-transaction > > table. (That might be an argument for preferring autovacuum = off > > over a temp table, too.) > > > > I agree with you on both the above points. I'll try to make the > necessary changes to address all your comments. Also, I'd prefer > creating a normal heap table with autovacuum = off over the temp table > for the reasons you mentioned in the second point. > Attached is the patch with the changes suggested here. I've tried to use a normal heap table with (autovacuum = off) wherever possible. Please have a look and let me know for any other issues. Thanks, -- With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: