On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011: >> 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? > > They were deleted but there are transactions with older snapshots.
Oh. I was thinking "dead" meant "no longer visible to anyone". But it sounds what we call "unremovable" here is what we elsewhere call "recently dead". > I think vacuum uses the term "nondeletable" or "nonremovable". Not sure > which one is less bad. Not being a native speaker, they all sound > horrible to me. "nondeletable" is surely terrible, since they may well have got into this state by being deleted. "nonremovable" is better, but still not great. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
