On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> > OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune based on the
> > newer XID unless the page LSN is guaranteed to advance whenever data
> > is removed. Currently, we attempt to limit bloat in non-unlogged,
> > non-catalog tables. You're saying we can instead attempt to limit
> > bloat only in non-unlogged, non-catalog tables without hash indexes,
> > and that will fix this issue. Am I right?
> As a first cut, something like the attached.
Patch looks good to me. I have done some testing with hash and btree
indexes and it works as expected.