On 2011-11-15 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga<yebhavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
(name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
this review) are highly subjective and I wouldn't spend time on it unless
other people have the same opinion.
I share your opinion; it's not obvious to me what this means either.
I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead
tuples?
The only case I could think of was that a still running repeatable read
transaction read them before they were deleted and committed by another
transaction.
--
Yeb Havinga
http://www.mgrid.net/
Mastering Medical Data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
