On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we might need additional "freezing-xmax" operations to avoid XID-wraparound in the first path of vacuum, though it hardly occurs.

I'm not sure I follow.  Can you elaborate?  Do you mean storing a
separate relfrozenxmax for each table or something like that?

We need to work around wraparound of xmax in dead tuples. If we miss to
vacuum them and XID is wrapped, we cannot remove them until the next
XID-wraparound, because we treat them to be deleted in the *future*.

Oh, but this should not be a problem, because a tuple is either frozen
or removed completely -- xmax cannot precede xmin.

What if it's frozen, then deleted, and then we wrap on xmax? Wouldn't that make the tuple re-appear?
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to