Horton

Re: [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring

Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Royce Ausburn <royce.ml@inomial.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2011-11-15T15:22:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2011-11-15 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga<yebhavinga@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
>> (name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
>> this review) are highly subjective and I wouldn't spend time on it unless
>> other people have the same opinion.
> I share your opinion; it's not obvious to me what this means either.
> I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead
> tuples?
>
The only case I could think of was that a still running repeatable read 
transaction read them before they were deleted and committed by another 
transaction.

-- 
Yeb Havinga
http://www.mgrid.net/
Mastering Medical Data