Simon Riggs wrote:
> From what's been said VACUUM FREEZE will not alter the fact that a
> frozen table will need vacuuming again in the future and so cannot ever
> be read-only. I can't really see any reason to run VACUUM FREEZE...
Yeah.
> If you want to make a table read-only forever, we need a
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 12:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My proposal to solve that problem, is to make any transaction that
> > inserts or modifies tuples in a table that is marked as frozen, unfreeze
> > it first. The problem I had last time was finding
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a version that applies cleanly to current CVS tip. Do I post it
> again?
No need unless you think the changes are significant. I'll try to look
over the patch soon.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch, which did exactly this.
> > Is it OK for applying?
>
> I haven't looked at it ... when did you post it exactly?
From: Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch, which did exactly this.
> Is it OK for applying?
I haven't looked at it ... when did you post it exactly?
> (I'm using RecentXmin instead of current XID though, because a
> currently-running transaction cou
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see any very good argument for allowing this mechanism to set
> minxid = FrozenXid in the first place. If there are only frozenXid in
> the table, set minxid = current XID. That eliminates the entire problem
> at a stroke.
Ok, so I shall go back to the original patch,
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My proposal to solve that problem, is to make any transaction that
> inserts or modifies tuples in a table that is marked as frozen, unfreeze
> it first. The problem I had last time was finding a good spot in the
> code for doing so. I'm now proposing
