RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date: 2001-05-21 20:01:29
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E3201663A@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > We could keep share buffer lock (or add some other kind of lock)
> > untill tuple projected - after projection we need not to read data
> > for fetched tuple from shared buffer and time between fetching
> > tuple and projection is very short, so keeping lock on buffer will
> > not impact concurrency significantly.
>
> Or drop the pin on the buffer to show we no longer have a pointer
> to it. I'm not sure that the time to do projection is short though
> --- what if there are arbitrary user-defined functions in the quals
> or the projection targetlist?

Well, while we are on this subject I finally should say about issue
bothered me for long time: only "simple" functions should be allowed
to deal with data in shared buffers directly. "Simple" means: no SQL
queries there. Why? One reason: we hold shlock on buffer while doing
seqscan qual - what if qual' SQL queries will try to acquire exclock
on the same buffer? Another reason - concurrency. I think that such
"heavy" functions should be provided with copy of data.

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Barry Lind 2001-05-21 20:19:08 Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2001-05-21 19:05:19 PL/pgSQL CURSOR support