On 2015-08-10 11:25:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08/10/2015 11:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >On 2015-08-10 07:26:29 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > >>So there is no conflict, but options 2) and 3) are completely redundant if > >>we go for 5). After investigation, I now think 5) is achievable in 9.6, but > >>if I am wrong for whatever reason, we have 2) as a backstop. > > > >I don't think that's true. You can't ever delete the clog without > >freezing. There's no need for anti-wraparound scans anymore, but you > >still need to freeze once. > > What's your definition of freezing? As long as you remove all dead tuples, > you can just leave the rest in place with their original XID+epoch in place, > and assume that everything old enough is committed.
Hm. Right. -ENCOFFEE (I really ran out of beans). Sorry for that. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers