Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My idea was to move relminxid to a new pg_class_nt non-transactional
> > catalog in 8.3, but we certainly need to give a solution for the problem
> > in 8.2.
>
> Didn't we pretty much shoot down the idea of a nontransactional
> exten
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:49:47AM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Tom Lane wrote:
> >>"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>I just noticed that freezing a tuple (in vacuumlazy.c) is not
> >>>WAL-logged.
> >>The theory is that this doesn't matter because
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My idea was to move relminxid to a new pg_class_nt non-transactional
> catalog in 8.3, but we certainly need to give a solution for the problem
> in 8.2.
Didn't we pretty much shoot down the idea of a nontransactional
extension catalog as being not wort
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Tom Lane wrote:
> >>"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>I just noticed that freezing a tuple (in vacuumlazy.c) is not
> >>>WAL-logged.
> >>The theory is that this doesn't matter because the tuple is committed
> >>either way ...
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I just noticed that freezing a tuple (in vacuumlazy.c) is not
WAL-logged.
The theory is that this doesn't matter because the tuple is committed
either way ... it's equivalent to a hint-bit update which we do
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I just noticed that freezing a tuple (in vacuumlazy.c) is not
WAL-logged.
The theory is that this doesn't matter because the tuple is committed
either way ... it's equivalent to a hint-bit update which we don't
WAL-log either.
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just noticed that freezing a tuple (in vacuumlazy.c) is not
> > WAL-logged.
>
> The theory is that this doesn't matter because the tuple is committed
> either way ... it's equivalent to a hint-bit update which we don't
> WAL
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just noticed that freezing a tuple (in vacuumlazy.c) is not
> WAL-logged.
The theory is that this doesn't matter because the tuple is committed
either way ... it's equivalent to a hint-bit update which we don't
WAL-log either.
I just noticed that freezing a tuple (in vacuumlazy.c) is not
WAL-logged. That leads to this scenario:
postgres=# CREATE TABLE foo (bar int);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1);
INSERT 0 1
postgres=# SELECT xmin,xmax, bar FROM foo;
xmin | xmax | bar
--+--+-
669 |
