On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jan Wieck <janwi...@yahoo.com> writes: >> On 6/2/2010 3:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> I'd prefer a setting that would tell the system to freeze all tuples >>> that fall within a safety range whenever any tuple in the page is frozen >>> -- weren't you working on a patch to do this? (was it Jeff Davis?) > >> I just see a lot of cost caused by this "safety range". I yet have to >> see its real value, other than "feel good". > > Jan, you don't know what you're talking about. I have repeatedly had > cases where being able to look at xmin was critical to understanding > a bug. I *will not* hold still for a solution that effectively reduces > min_freeze_age to zero.
So, we're talking in circles here. I've already proposed a method that would avoid the need to wipe out the xmins: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01485.php And you said that if we were going to do that we might as well just freeze sooner: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01548.php If you don't want to freeze sooner, let's go back to the method described in the first email. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
