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 14:49:12 |
Message-ID: | 200709181449.l8IEnCp02401@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:
> >> 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.
>
> No, you're missing the point completely. If the free space on the page
> is, say, 1.5x the average tuple size, the code *won't* prune, and then
> it will be stuck when it goes to do the second tuple update, because
> there is no chance to reconsider the prune/no-prune decision after some
> space is eaten by the first update.
My point is that if you only do this for INSERT/UPDATE, you can prune
when you have less than enough room for 3-4 tuples, and if you add the
xmin of the earliest prune xact you can prune even more aggressively.
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2007-09-18 15:05:20 | Traveling to Russia |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-18 14:46:34 | Re: Raw device I/O for large objects |