On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we can give a brief explanation right in the code comment. I >> referred to "decreasing the TIDs"; you are referring to "moving tuples >> around". But I think that moving the tuples to different locations is >> not the problem. I think the problem is that a tuple might be >> assigned a lower spot in the item pointer array > > I think we both understand the problem and it is just matter of using > different words. I will go with your suggestion and will try to > slightly adjust the README as well so that both places use same > terminology.
Yes, I think we're on the same page. > Right, but we don't need that guarantee (there is no pending scan that > has seen the flag after it is cleared) to clear the flags. It was > written in one of the previous patches where I was exploring the idea > of using cleanup lock to clear the flags and then don't use the same > during vacuum. However, there were some problems in that design and I > have changed the code, but forgot to update the comment. OK, got it, thanks. -- 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
