From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune |
Date: | 2012-12-16 14:42:54 |
Message-ID: | 20121216144254.GE4683@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-12-15 16:48:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Doing that only makes sense when we're running a SELECT. Setting the
> > all visible bit immediately prior to an UPDATE that clears it again is
> > pointless effort, generating extra work for no reason.
>
> On the other hand, the HOT prune operation itself is worthless when
> we're running a SELECT. The only reason we do it that way is that we
> have to prune before the query starts to use the page, else pruning
> might invalidate pointers-to-tuples that are being held within the
> query plan tree.
>
> Maybe it's time to look at what it'd take for the low-level scan
> operations to know whether they're scanning the target relation of
> an UPDATE query, so that we could skip pruning altogether except
> when a HOT update could conceivably ensue. I think this was discussed
> back when HOT went in, but nobody wanted to make the patch more invasive
> than it had to be.
FWIW I think that would be a pretty worthwile optimization - I have seen
workloads where hot pruning lead to considerable contention.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-16 14:55:41 | Re: logical decoding - GetOldestXmin |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-16 14:41:20 | Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune |