Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But the patch changes things so that *everyone* excludes the vacuum from
>> their xmin.  Or at least I thought that was the plan.

> We shouldn't do that, because that Xmin is also used to truncate

Yeah, but you were going to change that, no?  Truncating SUBTRANS will
need to include the vacuum xact's xmin, but we don't need it for any
other purpose.

> but it means
> lazy vacuum will never be able to use subtransactions.

This patch already depends on the assumption that lazy vacuum will never
do any transactional updates, so I don't see what it would need
subtransactions for.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to