On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > > OK, I see now: the basic idea here is that we can't prune based on the > > newer XID unless the page LSN is guaranteed to advance whenever data > > is removed. Currently, we attempt to limit bloat in non-unlogged, > > non-catalog tables. You're saying we can instead attempt to limit > > bloat only in non-unlogged, non-catalog tables without hash indexes, > > and that will fix this issue. Am I right? > > As a first cut, something like the attached. >
Patch looks good to me. I have done some testing with hash and btree indexes and it works as expected.