Обсуждение: Update README.tuplock?

Hi,

Commit f741300c90141ee274f19a13629ae03a9806b598 ("Have multixact be truncated
by checkpoint, not vacuum") changed who truncates multixact. README.tuplock
still says VACUUM is in charge of the truncation. I think it's an oversight in
updating the README unless I am missing something.

I attempted to fix it as attached. See if that makes sense.

Thanks,
Amit

On 5/25/15 4:38 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Commit f741300c90141ee274f19a13629ae03a9806b598 ("Have multixact be truncated
> by checkpoint, not vacuum") changed who truncates multixact. README.tuplock
> still says VACUUM is in charge of the truncation. I think it's an oversight in
> updating the README unless I am missing something.
>
> I attempted to fix it as attached. See if that makes sense.

Looks good and is AFAIK correct.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 5/25/15 4:38 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> >Commit f741300c90141ee274f19a13629ae03a9806b598 ("Have multixact be truncated
> >by checkpoint, not vacuum") changed who truncates multixact. README.tuplock
> >still says VACUUM is in charge of the truncation. I think it's an oversight in
> >updating the README unless I am missing something.
> >
> >I attempted to fix it as attached. See if that makes sense.
> 
> Looks good and is AFAIK correct.

No, it's wrong .. Will push a fix, thanks.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
> > On 5/25/15 4:38 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> > >Commit f741300c90141ee274f19a13629ae03a9806b598 ("Have multixact be truncated
> > >by checkpoint, not vacuum") changed who truncates multixact. README.tuplock
> > >still says VACUUM is in charge of the truncation. I think it's an oversight in
> > >updating the README unless I am missing something.
> > >
> > >I attempted to fix it as attached. See if that makes sense.
> > 
> > Looks good and is AFAIK correct.
> 
> No, it's wrong .. Will push a fix, thanks.

Pushed and back-patched.  I noticed that I hadn't backpatched b01a4f6838
which also updated this file, so I did so now as a single commit.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On 2015-05-26 AM 03:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> On 5/25/15 4:38 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> Commit f741300c90141ee274f19a13629ae03a9806b598 ("Have multixact be truncated
>>>> by checkpoint, not vacuum") changed who truncates multixact. README.tuplock
>>>> still says VACUUM is in charge of the truncation. I think it's an oversight in
>>>> updating the README unless I am missing something.
>>>>
>>>> I attempted to fix it as attached. See if that makes sense.
>>>
>>> Looks good and is AFAIK correct.
>>
>> No, it's wrong .. Will push a fix, thanks.
> 
> Pushed and back-patched.  I noticed that I hadn't backpatched b01a4f6838
> which also updated this file, so I did so now as a single commit.
> 

Thanks!

Amit