Re: Min Xid problem proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Min Xid problem proposal
Date
Msg-id 20051209185721.GA27513@surnet.cl
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Min Xid problem proposal  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Min Xid problem proposal
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> I don't see any very good argument for allowing this mechanism to set
> minxid = FrozenXid in the first place.  If there are only frozenXid in
> the table, set minxid = current XID.  That eliminates the entire problem
> at a stroke.

Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch, which did exactly this.
Is it OK for applying?

(I'm using RecentXmin instead of current XID though, because a
currently-running transaction could insert tuples in the table I just
vacuumed.)

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Log of CREATE USER statement
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Log of CREATE USER statement