Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WzniNW8ErVjYWHwYT1u8256fNaRx=7R=cdgWUMUJKm8yVg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > - Is committed, and committed before RecentGlobalXmin. Actually, I guess amcheck would need to use its own scan's snapshot xmin instead. This is true because it cares about visibility in a way that's "backwards" relative to existing code that tests something against RecentGlobalXmin. Is there any existing thing that works that way? If it's not clear what I mean: existing code that cares about RecentGlobalXmin is using it as a *conservative* point before which every snapshot sees every transaction as committed/aborted (and therefore nobody can care if that other backend hot prunes dead tuples from before then, or whatever it is). Whereas, amcheck needs to care about the possibility that *anyone else* decided that pruning or whatever is okay, based on generic criteria, and not what amcheck happened to see as RecentGlobalXmin during snapshot acquisition. -- Peter Geoghegan VMware vCenter Server https://www.vmware.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: