On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 10:22 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 7:22 am, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OTOH a few hackers discussed this recently and found that nobody
> used
> > serializable transactions (ST) except dur
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:32:19AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> To do that requires not just that you have access to a backend's oldest
> snapshot, but that you have access to *all* its active snapshots;
> because such a transient tuple might be visible in some newer snap even
> though it's too new for
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:22:35PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Paul, you mention serializable transactions, but your root issue seems
> to be that VACUUM clears up less rows when pg_dump is running, yes? Have
> you tried using an on-line hot backup with archive_command set (PITR)?
> That doesn't su
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 01:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The topic of improving vacuum for use in heavy-update environments seems
> > to come up frequently on the list. Has anyone weighed the costs of
> > allowing VACUUM to reclaim tuples that are not o
Paul Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The topic of improving vacuum for use in heavy-update environments seems
> to come up frequently on the list. Has anyone weighed the costs of
> allowing VACUUM to reclaim tuples that are not older than the oldest
> transaction but are nonetheless inv
The topic of improving vacuum for use in heavy-update environments seems
to come up frequently on the list. Has anyone weighed the costs of
allowing VACUUM to reclaim tuples that are not older than the oldest
transaction but are nonetheless invisible to all running transactions?
It seems that
