On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Howard Chu <h...@symas.com> wrote:

>
>  My earlier assumption (before reading mdb_page_alloc) was that LMDB
>> would be aggressive about grabbing pages freed by transactions that are
>> not actively being read. If we're relying on `last < oldest` to create a
>> two page discrepancy, this means when we actually have readers on older
>> transactions that we're being little more conservative than necessary.
>>
>
> More than necessary? I don't think so.


You'll conserve exactly one more transaction's free pages than necessary in
the case where a reader-lock exists on any transaction older than the most
recent snapshot.

Reply via email to