| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jinbao Chen <cjinbao(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add table AM 'tid_visible' |
| Date: | 2020-11-02 17:14:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20201102171426.xuhc2hw3zsuv2mjy@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-11-02 09:16:26 +0000, Jinbao Chen wrote:
> We directly call the heap function VM_ALL_VISIBLE in the
> IndexOnlyNext function. This is not in line with the design idea of
> table am. If the new storage type needs to implement index only
> scan, he must hack the IndexOnlyNext function.
Yea, it's something we should improve. Have you checked if this has
performance impact for heap? Should we also consider planning costs?
> So this patch add a new table am 'tid_visible' to test visibility
> of tid. So that index only scan can completely use table AM.
As far as I can tell you have not acually attached the patch.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-11-02 17:23:05 | Re: Split copy.c |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-11-02 17:09:22 | Re: public schema default ACL |