| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples |
| Date: | 2000-07-12 04:58:17 |
| Message-ID: | 002701bfebbd$caa1a240$2801007e@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> Basically what I want here is to build the new index relation as
> >> a new file (set of files, if large) and then atomically commit it
> >> as the new version of the index.
>
> > Hmm,your plan seems to need WAL.
> > We must postpone to build indexes until the end of tuple moving
> > in vacuum. Once tuple moving started,the consistency between
> > heap and indexes would be broken. Currently(without WAL) this
> > inconsistency could never be recovered in case of rollback.
>
> Why? The same commit that makes the new index valid would make the
> tuple movements valid.
Oops,I rememered I wasn't correct. Certainly it's not so dangerous as
I wrote. But there remains a possibilty that index tuples would point to
cleaned heap blocks unless we delete index tuples for those heap blocks.
Cleaned blocks would be reused by UPDATE operation.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-12 05:21:00 | Re: Performance problem in aset.c |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-12 04:28:46 | Re: Connection pooling. |