Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...

> Which one?  The one I applied doesn't have this change.

Never mind --- I misunderstood the context of the discussion and thought
you had made larger changes in the last version of the patch than I was
expecting ...

The patch as committed looks fine to me, modulo a couple of comments
which I've fixed.

One thing that slightly troubles me is that GetOldestXmin will now
ignore a lazy vacuum's *own* xmin, which is not like the previous
behavior.  Offhand I can't see a reason why this is not safe, but
maybe it'd have been better for it to do

+               if (ignoreVacuum && proc->inVacuum && proc != MyProc)
+                       continue;


                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to