On March 22, 2017 3:54:07 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2017-03-22 10:14:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (2) How you gonna update this in vacuum? It cannot do a
>transactional
>>> update.
>
>> I think we can just do that in a separate transaction, at the tail
>end
>>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-03-22 10:14:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (2) How you gonna update this in vacuum? It cannot do a transactional
>> update.
> I think we can just do that in a separate transaction, at the tail end
> of vacuum_rel() - if we crash just before that, not that much is lo
On 2017-03-22 10:14:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I propose that for each pg_class entry we start to keep the following
> > additional metadata:
> > - CATALOG_VERSION_NO at relation creation
> > - PG_VERSION_NUM at relation creation
> > - CATALOG_VERSION_NO at last full sca
Andres Freund writes:
> I propose that for each pg_class entry we start to keep the following
> additional metadata:
> - CATALOG_VERSION_NO at relation creation
> - PG_VERSION_NUM at relation creation
> - CATALOG_VERSION_NO at last full scan by vacuum
> - PG_VERSION_NUM at last full scan by vacuum
