Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bhFhT-0005RN-ME for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 12:42:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bhFhT-0001zM-8x for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 12:42:03 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bhFh7-0001b8-6H for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 12:41:41 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bhFh4-0001Sm-Ca for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 12:41:40 +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 u86CfY3g016061; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 08:41:34 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Egor Rogov cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FrozenTransactionId In-reply-to: <57CE6F15.4060101@postgrespro.ru> References: <575D7955.6060209@postgrespro.ru> <1473096445753-5919545.post@n3.nabble.com> <31833.1473097584@sss.pgh.pa.us> <57CDED18.8060005@postgrespro.ru> <57CE6F15.4060101@postgrespro.ru> Comments: In-reply-to Egor Rogov message dated "Tue, 06 Sep 2016 10:24:05 +0300" Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 08:41:34 -0400 Message-ID: <16060.1473165694@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org Egor Rogov writes: >> Please find another patch attached. I hope it is a bit easier to >> review now. Hmm. I do not actually see anything wrong with the existing text: it does not say that FrozenTransactionId is what appears on disk, it says that frozen tuples are treated as if their xmin were FrozenTransactionId. That's an accurate description of the current implementation. I'm not sure that removing all mention of special XIDs is a good thing, especially since they will still exist on-disk in pg_upgrade'd installations. It does seem like this paragraph could do with some copy-editing, but I doubt that removing information is the way to go about that. What I'd change: 1. Grammar fix: s/effects ... is/effects ... are/ 2. Remove the useless phrase ", from an MVCC perspective," 3. Reorder the sentences just after that, so that we have "Normal XIDs are compared ... suddenly appear to be in the future. To prevent this, PostgreSQL reserves a special XID, FrozenTransactionId, ... considered older than every normal XID. Frozen row versions are treated as if ..." It might also be worth mentioning explicitly that FrozenTransactionId can appear on-disk in old installations. And I'd be slightly tempted to put in an explanation of BootstrapTransactionId, because users will see that as well if they look into any system catalogs. Comments? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs