On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still not really comfortable with the handling of vacuum
generation numbers.
Pavan and I spent a bit of time today talking about how many vacuum
generation numbers we need to have in order for this scheme to work.
On Sep 23, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Another thing I'm not sure whether to worry about is the question of
where we store the vacuum generation information. I mean, if we store
it in pg_class, then what happens if the user does a manual update of
pg_class just as we're updating the
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. If we don't know the status of the vacuum that collected the
line pointer and marked it vacuum-dead, the next vacuum will pick it
up again and stamp it with its own generation number.
I'm still not really
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On Aug 22, 2011, at 1:22 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Hi All,
Here is a revised patch based on our earlier discussion. I implemented
Robert's idea of tracking the vacuum generation number in the line
pointer itself. For LP_DEAD
Hi All,
Here is a revised patch based on our earlier discussion. I implemented
Robert's idea of tracking the vacuum generation number in the line
pointer itself. For LP_DEAD line pointers, the lp_off/lp_len is unused
(and always set to 0 for heap tuples). We use those 30 bits to store
the
On Aug 22, 2011, at 1:22 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Hi All,
Here is a revised patch based on our earlier discussion. I implemented
Robert's idea of tracking the vacuum generation number in the line
pointer itself. For LP_DEAD line pointers, the lp_off/lp_len is unused
(and always set to 0
