Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm a little worried about having this set to "true" after a VACUUM is > executed, and only reset to false when the next transaction is begun: it > shouldn't affect correctness right now, but it seems like asking for > trouble. Resetting the flag to "false" after processing a transaction > would probably be worth doing.
These days I'd be inclined to use a PG_TRY construct to guarantee the flag is cleared, rather than loading another cleanup operation onto unrelated code. The MyProc != NULL tests are a waste of code space. You can't even acquire an LWLock without MyProc being set, let alone access tables. The real issue here though is whether anyone can blow a hole in the xmin assumptions: is there any situation where ignoring a vacuum transaction breaks things? I haven't had time to think about it in any detail, but it definitely needs to be thought about. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]