On Jun 8, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > This is kind of like the other property it would be nice to know about > transactions: that they've locked all the tables they're going to lock. That sounds like something I've wanted for a very long time: the ability for a transaction to say exactly what tables it's going to access. Presumably disallowing it from taking out any more table locks (anything you do on a table needs at least a share lock, right?) would take care of that.
If we had that information vacuum could ignore the old snapshots on those tables, so long as it ensures that the vacuum process itself can't read anything from those tables (handling the functional index issue Tom mentioned). -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
