On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Hmmm, do we really need to WAL log freezing?
>
>> That might solve the relfrozenxid problem - set the bits in the heap,
>> sync the heap, then update relfrozenxid on
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Hmmm, do we really need to WAL log freezing?
>>>
>>> Can we break down freezing into a 2 stage process, so that we can have
>>> fi
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Hmmm, do we really need to WAL log freezing?
>>
>> Can we break down freezing into a 2 stage process, so that we can have
>> first stage as a lossy operation and a second stage that is WA
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> no, that wasn't my intent at all, except in the sense of wondering if
>> a crash-safe visibility map provides a route of displacing a lot of
>> hint bit i/o and by extension, making alt
On 10.05.2011 17:47, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
no, that wasn't my intent at all, except in the sense of wondering if
a crash-safe visibility map provides a route of displacing a lot of
hint bit i/o and by extension, making alternative approaches o
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Hmmm, do we really need to WAL log freezing?
> That might solve the relfrozenxid problem - set the bits in the heap,
> sync the heap, then update relfrozenxid once the heap is guaranteed
> safely on disk - but it again
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Hmmm, do we really need to WAL log freezing?
>
> Can we break down freezing into a 2 stage process, so that we can have
> first stage as a lossy operation and a second stage that is WAL
> logged?
That might solve the relfrozenxid problem - se
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> To address the first problem, what we've talked about doing is
> something along the line of freezing the tuples at the time we mark
> the page all-visible, so we don't have to go back and do it again
> later. Unfortunately, it's not quite th
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> no, that wasn't my intent at all, except in the sense of wondering if
> a crash-safe visibility map provides a route of displacing a lot of
> hint bit i/o and by extension, making alternative approaches of doing
> that, including mine, a lot
