Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X9HDY-0003D9-O1 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:17:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X9HDY-00056D-5m for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:17:40 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X9HDW-00053V-Hy for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:17:38 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X9HDT-0003TS-DB for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:17:36 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6LHHPbs006721; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:17:25 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Bruce Momjian , Alvaro Herrera , PostgreSQL Bugs Subject: Re: pg_upgrade < 9.3 -> >=9.3 misses a step around multixacts In-reply-to: <20140721170953.GP5974@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <19458.1405899435@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140720234925.GJ5974@alap3.anarazel.de> <22178.1405903964@sss.pgh.pa.us> <26504.1405912770@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140721161222.GA17049@alap3.anarazel.de> <3655.1405959656@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140721163409.GB14989@alap3.anarazel.de> <4182.1405961004@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140721164857.GO5974@alap3.anarazel.de> <6333.1405962201@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140721170953.GP5974@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:09:53 +0200" Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:17:25 -0400 Message-ID: <6720.1405963045@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-bugs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org Andres Freund writes: > On 2014-07-21 13:03:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't see any point in being picky about it. What we want is to reject >> values that are conclusively bogus; things that are just close to bogus >> are not so interesting. > It'd just have been about optimizing away repeated calls to ReadNew*... Oh. I think the existing code is probably efficient enough about that. vac_update_datfrozenxid() only does it once anyway, and the calls in vac_update_relstats() are arranged so that we don't expect them to be hit at all in normal cases. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs