On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we can give a brief explanation right in the code comment. I
>> referred to "decreasing the TIDs"; you are referring to "moving tuples
>> around". But I think that moving the tuples to different locations is
>> not the problem. I think the problem is that a tuple might be
>> assigned a lower spot in the item pointer array
>
> I think we both understand the problem and it is just matter of using
> different words. I will go with your suggestion and will try to
> slightly adjust the README as well so that both places use same
> terminology.
Yes, I think we're on the same page.
> Right, but we don't need that guarantee (there is no pending scan that
> has seen the flag after it is cleared) to clear the flags. It was
> written in one of the previous patches where I was exploring the idea
> of using cleanup lock to clear the flags and then don't use the same
> during vacuum. However, there were some problems in that design and I
> have changed the code, but forgot to update the comment.
OK, got it, thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company