On 1/24/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 1/24/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote: >> >> I thought the classical example was a transaction that updated the same >> tuple multiple times before committing. Then the version prior to the >> transaction start isn't dead yet, but all but one of the versions >> created by the transaction will be dead (they were never visible by >> anybody else anyway). > > I believe that calculation of oldestXmin would consider the running > transaction, if any, which can still see the original tuple. So the > intermediate tuples won't be declared DEAD (they will be declared > RECENTLY_DEAD) as long as the other transaction is running. Any newer > transactions would always see the committed copy and hence need not follow > ctid through the dead tuples. Martijn is correct that HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum considers tuples dead if there were created and deleted by the same transaction even if that transaction isn't past the oldestxmin horizon.
I agree. Here the tuple must had been created as an effect of INSERT and not UPDATE. Since if its created because of UPDATE, then HEAP_UPDATED bit is set on the tuple and tuple is not considered dead by HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum, even if its xmin and xmax are same. So it must have been created by INSERT. In that case there can not be a parent linking this tuple via t_ctid.
There's already been one bug in that area when it broke update chains, and to fix it vacuum ignores tuples that were deleted by the same transaction in an UPDATE statement.
Sounds logical.
This seems like such an unusual case, especially now that it's been narrowed by that exception, that it's silly to optimize for it. Just treat these tuples as live and they'll be vacuumed when their transaction commits and passes the oldestxmin like normal.
I agree. Nevertheless, I don't see any problem with having that optimization. Now that I think more about it, there are places where xmin of the next tuple in the t_ctid chain is matched with the xmax of the previous tuple to detect cases where one of the intermediate DEAD tuples has been vacuumed away and the slot has been reused by a completely unrelated tuple. So doesn't than mean we have already made provision for scenarios where intermediate DEAD tuples are vacuumed away ? Thanks, Pavan EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
