Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables
Date
Msg-id 1829941.1599593094@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> But now I do wonder why we need to know whether the command is top level
> or not? Why isn't the correct thing to instead look at what the current
> backend's xmin is? Seems like you could just replace
>     *oldestXmin = XidFromFullTransactionId(ReadNextFullTransactionId());
> with
>     *oldestXmin = MyProc->xmin;
>     Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(*oldestXmin));

Ummm ... since VACUUM doesn't run inside a transaction, it won't be
advertising an xmin will it?

Maybe you could make something like this work, but I think it'd still
have to treat CLUSTER as a special case.  Not sure it's worth it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData()
Next
From: James Coleman
Date:
Subject: Re: Binary search in ScalarArrayOpExpr for OR'd constant arrays