From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT (was Question:pg_classattributes and race conditions ?) |
Date: | 2007-03-19 11:21:43 |
Message-ID: | 1174303304.4160.709.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:06 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > This problem is solved by moving the wait (for all transactions in
> > reference snapshot to finish) so that it is now between the first and
> > second scans, as described.
> >
> > During the second Vscan we would prune each block, so the only remaining
> > tuple in the block when the second scan sees it would be (10,30) and it
> > would no longer be a HOT tuple - the index would have a pointer to it,
> > so no new index pointer would be added. The pointer to (10,30) is the
> > same pointer that was added in the first phase for the tuple (10,20).
> >
>
> The problem is that in the first phase, the pointer was inserted
> with key=20 whereas now its changed to 30. So we need to delete the old
> index entry and add a new one.
So don't index HOT tuples in the first phase, wait until the second.
That should be just a single if() test in IndexBuildHeapScan().
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-19 12:05:19 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT (was Question: pg_classattributes and race conditions ?) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-19 11:00:21 | Re: modifying the tbale function |