On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
On Jul 27, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
It would be cool if we could do something like sweep a range of
pages,
initiate IO for those that are not in shared buffers, and while
that is
runni
Decibel! wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we might need additional "freezing-xmax" operations to avoid
> XID-wraparound in the first path of vacuum, though it hardly occurs.
>>
On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we might need additional "freezing-xmax" operations to
avoid
XID-wraparound in the first path of vacuum, though it hardly
occurs.
I'm not sure I follow. Can you ela
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I think we might need additional "freezing-xmax" operations to avoid
> > > XID-wraparound in the first path of vacuum, though it hardly occurs.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate? Do you mean storing a
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think we might need additional "freezing-xmax" operations to avoid
> > XID-wraparound in the first path of vacuum, though it hardly occurs.
>
> I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate? Do you mean storing a
> separate relfrozenxmax for each tabl
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>>> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Read the heap blocks in sequence, but make a conditional lock for
cleanup on each block. If we don't get it, sleep, then try again when we
On Jul 27, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Read the heap blocks in sequence, but make a conditional lock for
cleanup on each block. If we don't get it, sleep, then try again
when we
wake up. If we fail the second time,
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Read the heap blocks in sequence, but make a conditional lock for
> > cleanup on each block. If we don't get it, sleep, then try again when we
> > wake up. If we fail the second time, just skip the block completely.
It would
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Read the heap blocks in sequence, but make a conditional lock for
> cleanup on each block. If we don't get it, sleep, then try again when we
> wake up. If we fail the second time, just skip the block completely.
When we allow some skips in removing dead
