| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ON CONFLICT (and manual row locks) cause xmax of updated tuple to unnecessarily be set |
| Date: | 2019-07-25 22:10:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20190725221000.i7oryd5m5z22fnir@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-07-24 17:14:39 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:24 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > but we really don't need to do any of that in this case - the only
> > locker is the current backend, after all.
> >
> > I think this isn't great, because it'll later will cause unnecessary
> > hint bit writes (although ones somewhat likely combined with setting
> > XMIN_COMMITTED), and even extra work for freezing.
> >
> > Based on a quick look this wasn't the case before the finer grained
> > tuple locking - which makes sense, there was no cases where locks would
> > need to be carried forward.
>
> I agree that this is unfortunate. Are you planning on working on it?
Not at the moment, no. Are you planning / hoping to take a stab at it?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-07-25 22:18:48 | Re: On the stability of TAP tests for LDAP |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-07-25 21:50:57 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |