Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Knew I should have taken time to review that patch before it went in ...
> Which one? The one I applied doesn't have this change. Never mind --- I misunderstood the context of the discussion and thought you had made larger changes in the last version of the patch than I was expecting ... The patch as committed looks fine to me, modulo a couple of comments which I've fixed. One thing that slightly troubles me is that GetOldestXmin will now ignore a lazy vacuum's *own* xmin, which is not like the previous behavior. Offhand I can't see a reason why this is not safe, but maybe it'd have been better for it to do + if (ignoreVacuum && proc->inVacuum && proc != MyProc) + continue; Thoughts? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings