On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> So I'm a bit confused about what you are saying here. If the page is
> marked all-frozen but actually isn't all-frozen, then we should clear
> the all-frozen bit in the VM.
>
Agreed.
> The easiest way to do that is to clear
> both bits in
Robert wrote:
> I think there should probably be a test for
> all_visible_according_to_vm at the beginning of that so that we don't
> add more visibility map checks for pages where we already know the VM
> bit can't possibly be set.
Yes, that looks like a good idea after more screening of this co
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Right, something like that. I think Andres actually wants something
like this in 9.6, and I'm inclined to think it might be a good idea,
too. I think there should probably be a test for
all_visible_according_to_vm at the beg
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Ah, I see. So your suggestion is to do this job in lazy_scan_heap()
when scanning each block, and then to issue a WARNING and clear the
visibility map. Indeed that's better. I g
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> Ah, I see. So your suggestion is to do this job in lazy_scan_heap()
>>> when scanning each block, and then to issue a WARNING and clear the
>>> visibility map. Indeed that's better. I guess I need to take a closer
>>> look at vacuumlazy.c. Se
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
> Under what circumstances would you wish to check only one p
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
Under what circumstances would you wish to check only one page of a
relation?
>>>
>>> What I'd like to be able to
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>> Under what circumstances would you wish to check only one page of a
>>> relation?
>>
>> What I'd like to be able to do is to stop scanning the relation once
>> one defective tuple
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>> Under what circumstances would you wish to check only one page of a relation?
>
> What I'd like to be able to do is to stop scanning the relation once
> one defective tuple has been found: if there is at least one problem,
> the whole vm n
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs:
>> pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* taking in input a block
>> number are SRFs, and return a set of record
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
While looking at the module I found two mistakes in
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs:
>>> pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* takin
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs:
>> pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* taking in input a block
>> number are SRFs, and return a set of records
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs:
> pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* taking in input a block
> number are SRFs, and return a set of records. The documentation is
> just listing them with "returns record"
Hi,
While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs:
pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* taking in input a block
number are SRFs, and return a set of records. The documentation is
just listing them with "returns record". A patch is attached.
Thanks,
--
Michael
docs-visibility
15 matches
Mail list logo
