From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
Date: | 2005-12-08 06:16:42 |
Message-ID: | 20051208061642.GK16053@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:15:25AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > What's worse, once you have excluded writes you have to rescan the entire
> > table to be sure you haven't missed anything. So in the scenarios where this
> > whole thing is actually interesting, ie enormous tables, you're still
> > talking about a fairly long interval with writes locked out. Maybe not as
> > long as a complete REINDEX, but long.
>
> I was thinking you would set a flag to disable use of the FSM for
> inserts/updates while the reindex was running. So you would know where to find
> the new tuples, at the end of the table after the last tuple you read.
What about keeping a seperate list of new tuples? Obviously we'd only do
this when an index was being built on a table. Since it would probably
be problematic and expensive to check for this every time you accessed a
table, it would make sense to check only at the start of a transaction
and have an index build wait until all running transactions knew that an
index build was going to happen.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-12-08 06:57:42 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-08 06:04:59 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |