From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Open issues for HOT patch |
Date: | 2007-09-18 03:57:53 |
Message-ID: | 200709180357.l8I3vr809690@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The problem is you can't prune anymore once you have existing pin on the
> >> target page. I'd really like to get around that, but so far it seems
> >> unacceptably fragile --- the executor really doesn't expect tuples to
> >> get moved around underneath it.
>
> > I thought you could do the pruning before you pin the page only in
> > update/insert cases.
>
> But then what happens when you want to update a second tuple on the same
> page? None of our existing plan types release and reacquire pin if they
> don't have to, and I really doubt that we want to give up that
> optimization.
You will prune when you lock the page and at that point unless you got
enough room for both tuples I doubt trying just before the second tuple
is going to help.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-09-18 04:37:47 | Re: Just-in-time Background Writer Patch+Test Results |
Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-09-18 03:55:11 | Re: Raw device I/O for large objects |