| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Min Xid problem proposal |
| Date: | 2005-12-09 18:57:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20051209185721.GA27513@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see any very good argument for allowing this mechanism to set
> minxid = FrozenXid in the first place. If there are only frozenXid in
> the table, set minxid = current XID. That eliminates the entire problem
> at a stroke.
Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch, which did exactly this.
Is it OK for applying?
(I'm using RecentXmin instead of current XID though, because a
currently-running transaction could insert tuples in the table I just
vacuumed.)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-09 19:07:43 | Re: Log of CREATE USER statement |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-12-09 18:41:35 | Re: Log of CREATE USER statement |