Cc: pgsql-hackers removed, as this mail contains a patch.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hannu Krossing asked me about his patch to ignore transactions running
> > VACUUM LAZY in other vacuum transactions. I attach a version of the
> > patch updated to the curren
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> A possible objection to this is that it would foreclose running VACUUM
>> and ANALYZE as a single transaction, exactly because of the point that
>> we couldn't insert pg_statistic rows using a lazy vacuum's XID.
> Hmm, what about havi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hannu Krossing asked me about his patch to ignore transactions running
> > VACUUM LAZY in other vacuum transactions. I attach a version of the
> > patch updated to the current sources.
>
> nonInVacuumXmin seems useless ... perhaps a
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hannu Krossing asked me about his patch to ignore transactions running
> VACUUM LAZY in other vacuum transactions. I attach a version of the
> patch updated to the current sources.
nonInVacuumXmin seems useless ... perhaps a vestige of some earlier
ver
Am Dienstag, 11. Juli 2006 23:01 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> One exception is that we can't do that with full vacuums. The reason is
> that full vacuum may want to run user-defined functions to be able to
> index the tuples it moves. This isn't a problem normally, except in the
> case where the fun
Hi,
Hannu Krossing asked me about his patch to ignore transactions running
VACUUM LAZY in other vacuum transactions. I attach a version of the
patch updated to the current sources.
Just to remind what this is about: the point of the patch is to be able
to run more than one VACUUM LAZY simultaneo
