Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely this'd require having those transactions display exactly what
> their current oldest-xmin is. We've talked about that before, and it
> seems a good idea, but it requires a bit more infrastructure than is
> there now --- we'd need some snapshot-manageme
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we can remove recently dead tuples even if non-serializable read-only
> transactions are still alive, because those transactions will not see older
> versions of tuples.
Surely this'd require having those transactions display exactly what
thei
Does not virtual transaction IDs in 8.3 help us to shorten vacuum threshold?
I think we can remove recently dead tuples even if non-serializable read-only
transactions are still alive, because those transactions will not see older
versions of tuples.
Another strange thing is that if an open trans
