From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Open issues for HOT patch |
Date: | 2007-09-18 13:52:56 |
Message-ID: | 3413.1190123576@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But then what happens when you want to update a second tuple on the same
>> page? None of our existing plan types release and reacquire pin if they
>> don't have to, and I really doubt that we want to give up that
>> optimization.
> You will prune when you lock the page and at that point unless you got
> enough room for both tuples I doubt trying just before the second tuple
> is going to help.
No, you're missing the point completely. If the free space on the page
is, say, 1.5x the average tuple size, the code *won't* prune, and then
it will be stuck when it goes to do the second tuple update, because
there is no chance to reconsider the prune/no-prune decision after some
space is eaten by the first update.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-09-18 13:59:42 | Re: Open issues for HOT patch |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-09-18 13:24:02 | Re: invalidly encoded strings |