On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune based on the >>> newer XID unless the page LSN is guaranteed to advance whenever data >>> is removed. Currently, we attempt to limit bloat in non-unlogged, >>> non-catalog tables. You're saying we can instead attempt to limit >>> bloat only in non-unlogged, non-catalog tables without hash indexes, >>> and that will fix this issue. Am I right? >> >> As a first cut, something like the attached. > > Patch looks good to me. I have done some testing with hash and > btree indexes and it works as expected.
Pushed with the addition of a paragraph to the docs regarding this and some other situations where people have been unclear about what to expect. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
