Jeff Janes writes:
> So like the attached, although it is a bit weird to call
> lazy_check_needs_freeze if , under !scan_all, we don't actually care
> about whether it needs freezing but only the hastup.
I think this misses unpinning the buffer in the added code path.
I rearranged to avoid that,
Jeff Janes writes:
> On Dec 29, 2015 4:47 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> Uh, isn't that what my patch is doing?
> My reading was it does that only if there are no tuples that could be
> frozen. If there are tuples that could be frozen, it actually does
> the freezing, even though that is not necessar
Forgetting to CC the list is starting to become a bad habit, sorry.
forwarding to list:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeff Janes
Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Avoid endless futile table locks in vacuuming.
To: Tom Lane
On Dec 29, 2015 4:47 PM, "Tom
