On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm still not really comfortable with the handling of vacuum
> generation numbers.
Pavan and I spent a bit of time today talking about how many vacuum
generation numbers we need to have in order for this scheme to work.
Before my memory fades
On Sep 23, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Another thing I'm not sure whether to worry about is the question of
> where we store the vacuum generation information. I mean, if we store
> it in pg_class, then what happens if the user does a manual update of
> pg_class just as we're updating
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> Yeah. If we don't know the status of the vacuum that collected the
> line pointer and marked it vacuum-dead, the next vacuum will pick it
> up again and stamp it with its own generation number.
I'm still not really comfortable with the hand
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 1:22 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here is a revised patch based on our earlier discussion. I implemented
>> Robert's idea of tracking the vacuum generation number in the line
>> pointer itself. For LP_DEAD line p
On Aug 22, 2011, at 1:22 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here is a revised patch based on our earlier discussion. I implemented
> Robert's idea of tracking the vacuum generation number in the line
> pointer itself. For LP_DEAD line pointers, the lp_off/lp_len is unused
> (and always set to
Hi All,
Here is a revised patch based on our earlier discussion. I implemented
Robert's idea of tracking the vacuum generation number in the line
pointer itself. For LP_DEAD line pointers, the lp_off/lp_len is unused
(and always set to 0 for heap tuples). We use those 30 bits to store
the generati
