On 08.03.2011 10:00, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Another idea is to give up on the warning when it appears that
> oldestxmin has moved backwards, and assume that it's actually fine. We
> could still warn in other cases where the flag appears to be incorrectly
> set, like if there is a deleted tuple on the page.
This is probably a better idea at least in back-branches. It also
handles the case of twiddling vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, which tracking
two xmins per transactions would not handle.
Here's a patch. I also changed the warning per Robert's suggestion.
Anyone see a hole in this?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
