ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we can remove recently dead tuples even if non-serializable read-only > transactions are still alive, because those transactions will not see older > versions of tuples.
Surely this'd require having those transactions display exactly what their current oldest-xmin is. We've talked about that before, and it seems a good idea, but it requires a bit more infrastructure than is there now --- we'd need some snapshot-management code that could keep track of all live snapshots within each backend. > Is it proper behavior? I worry about too conservative estimation > in incrementing ShmemVariableCache->latestCompletedXid. Too conservative is much better than too liberal, in this case (and I'm as bleeding-heart liberal as they come ;-)) regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly