On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 12:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My proposal to solve that problem, is to make any transaction that
inserts or modifies tuples in a table that is marked as frozen, unfreeze
it first. The problem I had last time was finding a good
Simon Riggs wrote:
From what's been said VACUUM FREEZE will not alter the fact that a
frozen table will need vacuuming again in the future and so cannot ever
be read-only. I can't really see any reason to run VACUUM FREEZE...
Yeah.
If you want to make a table read-only forever, we need a
Anybody remembers my patch to allow tracking the minimum Xid present in
a table, allowing to update the freeze xid on a per-table basis? The
motivation behind it was to remove the requirement of database-wide
vacuums.
The problem I found with it was that it required all tables to be
vacuumed at
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My proposal to solve that problem, is to make any transaction that
inserts or modifies tuples in a table that is marked as frozen, unfreeze
it first. The problem I had last time was finding a good spot in the
code for doing so. I'm now proposing to do
Tom Lane wrote:
I don't see any very good argument for allowing this mechanism to set
minxid = FrozenXid in the first place. If there are only frozenXid in
the table, set minxid = current XID. That eliminates the entire problem
at a stroke.
Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch,
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch, which did exactly this.
Is it OK for applying?
I haven't looked at it ... when did you post it exactly?
(I'm using RecentXmin instead of current XID though, because a
currently-running transaction could
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch, which did exactly this.
Is it OK for applying?
I haven't looked at it ... when did you post it exactly?
From: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Patches
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a version that applies cleanly to current CVS tip. Do I post it
again?
No need unless you think the changes are significant. I'll try to look
over the patch soon.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
