Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
> > (name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
> > this review) are highly subjective and I wouldn't spend time on it unless
> > other people have the same opinion.
> I share your opinion; it's not obvious to me what this means either.
> I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead
> tuples?

They were deleted but there are transactions with older snapshots.

I think vacuum uses the term "nondeletable" or "nonremovable".  Not sure
which one is less bad.  Not being a native speaker, they all sound
horrible to me.

Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to