Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks > > (name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of > > this review) are highly subjective and I wouldn't spend time on it unless > > other people have the same opinion. > > I share your opinion; it's not obvious to me what this means either. > I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead > tuples?
They were deleted but there are transactions with older snapshots. I think vacuum uses the term "nondeletable" or "nonremovable". Not sure which one is less bad. Not being a native speaker, they all sound horrible to me. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
