On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
>
> > OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune based on the
> > newer XID unless the page LSN is guaranteed to advance whenever
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune based on the
> newer XID unless the page LSN is guaranteed to advance whenever data
> is removed. Currently, we attempt to limit bloat in non-unlogged,
>
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> >>> Uh, I have no idea how this would be fixed if the PageLSN
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune based on the
> newer XID unless the page LSN is guaranteed to advance whenever data
> is removed. Currently, we attempt to limit bloat in non-unlogged,
>
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Uh, I have no idea how this would be fixed if the PageLSN is
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Uh, I have no idea how this would be fixed if the PageLSN is zero. Do
>>> you?
>>
>> Yes, I see three ways, the most obvious of which is
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Uh, I have no idea how this would be fixed if the PageLSN is zero. Do
>> you?
>
> Yes, I see three ways, the most obvious of which is what Amit
> suggested -- don't do early vacuum on a table which has a hash index.
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 04:02:35PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Amit Kapila
>>
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 04:02:35PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently we do the test for old snapshot
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> Currently we do the test for old snapshot (TestForOldSnapshot) for hash
>> indexes while scanning them. Does this test makes any sense
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> Currently we do the test for old snapshot (TestForOldSnapshot) for hash
> indexes while scanning them. Does this test makes any sense for hash
> indexes considering LSN on hash index will always be zero (as hash
Currently we do the test for old snapshot (TestForOldSnapshot) for hash
indexes while scanning them. Does this test makes any sense for hash
indexes considering LSN on hash index will always be zero (as hash indexes
are not WAL-logged)? It seems to me that PageLSN check in
TestForOldSnapshot()
13 matches
Mail list logo