| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Date: | 2016-07-01 20:43:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20160701204329.7bvfy2fu47fn4fjp@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-07-01 15:42:22 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 7/1/16 2:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > The only
> > > > cost of that is that vacuum will come along and mark the page
> > > > all-visible again instead of skipping it, but that's probably not an
> > > > enormous expense in most cases.
> > I think the main cost is not having the page marked as all-visible for
> > index-only purposes. If it's an insert mostly table, it can be a long
> > while till vacuum comes around.
>
> ISTM that's something that should be addressed anyway (and separately), no?
Huh? That's the current behaviour in heap_lock_tuple.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-07-01 20:49:04 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-07-01 20:42:22 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |