| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Potential problem with HOT and indexes? |
| Date: | 2009-03-08 17:36:08 |
| Message-ID: | 172.1236533768@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Another thought now though. What if someone updates the pg_index entry --
> since we never reset indcheckxmin then the new tuple will have a new xmin and
> will suddenly become invisible again for no reason.
Hmm ... if updates to pg_index entries were common then I could get
worried about that, but they really aren't.
> Couldn't this happen if you set a table WITHOUT CLUSTER for example? Or if
> --as possibly happened in the user's case-- you reindex the table and don't
> find any HOT update chains but the old pg_index entry had indcheckxmin set
> already?
This is all useless guesswork until we find out whether he was using
REINDEX or CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-03-08 17:45:53 | Re: Potential problem with HOT and indexes? |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-03-08 17:12:23 | Re: Potential problem with HOT and indexes? |