On Jul 21, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
One
possibility is that early freeze is at 1B transactions and we push
forced-freeze back to 1.5B transactions (the current forced-freeze
at 1B
transactions seems rather aggresive anyway, now that the server will
refuse to issue new commands rather
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For clobbering xmin too early, we could make it so that only tuples
> older than some threashold would be subject to 'early freezing'.
OK, that might be acceptable.
> One
> possibility is that early freeze is at 1B transactions and we push
> forced-fre
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 07:45:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ISTM that as soon as vacuum dirties a page, it might as well update all
> > tuples it can (any where Xmin < GetOldestXmin()), since that won't take
> > much time compared to the cost of writin
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ISTM that as soon as vacuum dirties a page, it might as well update all
> tuples it can (any where Xmin < GetOldestXmin()), since that won't take
> much time compared to the cost of writing the page out.
Perhaps not, but what it will do is destroy data
Currently, the loop in vacuumlazy.c that scans through the tuples on a
page checks each tuple to see if it needs to be frozen (is it's Xmin
older than half-way to wrap-around).
ISTM that as soon as vacuum dirties a page, it might as well update all
tuples it can (any where Xmin < GetOldestXmin()),
