| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |
| Date: | 2010-12-13 17:48:48 |
| Message-ID: | 23932.1292262528@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 13.12.2010 19:19, Greg Stark wrote:
>> If it's only the backup blocks that matter couldn't you generate noop
>> WAL records with just the full page image in them. Once all those are
>> generated then generate the actual split operation and since all the
>> pages have been written to wal since the last checkpoint they won't
>> need any backup block slots.
>>
>> This would require surpressing any checkpoints between writing the
>> first backup block and the final operation record. That might be
>> pretty hard to do cleanly.
> That would work, but it brings us back to square one
Yeah. Wouldn't the original page-split record have been carrying full
page images already? (And if so, why didn't we have this problem in the
previous implementation?)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-12-13 17:55:55 | Re: CommitFest wrap-up |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-13 17:37:52 | CommitFest wrap-up |