Re: Alternative for vacuuming queue-like tables - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Alternative for vacuuming queue-like tables
Date
Msg-id 2831.1146771034@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Alternative for vacuuming queue-like tables  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Responses Re: Alternative for vacuuming queue-like tables
Re: Alternative for vacuuming queue-like tables
List pgsql-general
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> I'd actually been thinking about this recently, and had come up with the
> following half-baked ideas:

> Allow a transaction to specify exactly what tables it will be touching,
> perhaps as an extension to BEGIN. Should any action that transaction
> takes attempt to access a table not specified, throw an error.

> A possible variant on that would be to automatically determine at
> transaction start all the tables that would be accessed by that
> transaction.

> Once that list is available, vacuum should be able to use it to ignore
> any transactions that have promised not to touch whatever table it's
> vacuuming.

No, you missed my point entirely.  The above would help not at all,
unless the restrictions were somehow propagated through XMIN
calculations, which seems impracticable.  (Every backend calculate a
separate XMIN with respect to every table that's being mentioned by any
other backend?  I don't think so...)

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: dump Functions
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: how can i view deleted records?