On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, > > At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:09:43 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote > in <CA+TgmoZCCFwgKL0PmSi=htfz2acozpotpd73ecvsa9rhxa0...@mail.gmail.com> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I am not really getting the meaning of this sentence. Shouldn't this >> > be reworded something like: >> > "Freezing occurs on the whole table once all pages of this relation >> > require it." >> >> That statement isn't remotely true, and I don't think this patch >> changes that. Freezing occurs on the whole table once relfrozenxid is >> old enough that we think there might be at least one page in the table >> that requires it. > > I doubt I can explain this accurately, but I took the original > phrase as that if and only if all pages of the table are marked > as "requires freezing" by accident, all pages are frozen. It's > quite obvious but it is what I think "happen to require freezing" > means. Does this make sense? > > The phrase might not be necessary if this is correct.
Maybe you are trying to say something like "only those pages which require freezing are frozen?". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
