Re: Reviewing freeze map code

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Date: 2016-06-23 23:03:11
Message-ID: 20160623230311.t3y52dmx6u4yxtfr@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-06-23 18:59:57 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I'm looking into three approaches right now:
> >
> > 3) Use WAL logging for the already_marked = true case.
>
>
> > 3) This approach so far seems the best. It's possible to reuse the
> > xl_heap_lock record (in an afaics backwards compatible manner), and in
> > most cases the overhead isn't that large. It's of course annoying to
> > emit more WAL, but it's not that big an overhead compared to extending a
> > file, or to toasting. It's also by far the simplest fix.
>
> I suppose it's fine if we crash midway from emitting this wal record and
> the actual heap_update one, since the xmax will appear to come from an
> aborted xid, right?

Yea, that should be fine.

> I agree that the overhead is probably negligible, considering that this
> only happens when toast is invoked. It's probably not as great when the
> new tuple goes to another page, though.

I think it has to happen in both cases unfortunately. We could try to
add some optimizations (e.g. only release lock & WAL log if the target
page, via fsm, is before the current one), but I don't really want to go
there in the back branches.

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2016-06-23 23:14:32 Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps
Previous Message David Rowley 2016-06-23 23:00:13 Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps