Re: should there be a hard-limit on the number of transactionspending undo? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: should there be a hard-limit on the number of transactionspending undo?
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzksYJ=Y8nK3QPbJGW5zwDZPAutf+mB4Z=twSWKbA7TdNQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should there be a hard-limit on the number of transactionspending undo?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 12:39 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> I think that indexes (or at least B-Tree indexes) will ideally almost
> always have tuples that are the latest versions with zheap. The
> exception is tuples whose ghost bit is set, whose visibility varies
> based on the MVCC snapshot in use. But the instant that the
> deleting/updating xact commits it becomes legal to recycle the old
> heap TID.

Sorry, I meant the instant the ghost bit index tuple cannot be visible
to any possible MVCC snapshot. Which, in general, will be pretty soon
after the deleting/updating xact commits.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove page-read callback from XLogReaderState.
Next
From: Sehrope Sarkuni
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)