From: | Janardhan <jana-reddy(at)mediaring(dot)com(dot)sg> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Janardhan <jana-reddy(at)mediaring(dot)com(dot)sg> |
Subject: | Re: Reusing Dead Tuples: |
Date: | 2002-12-11 05:47:14 |
Message-ID: | 3DF6D162.3050707@mediaring.com.sg |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Janardhan <jana-reddy(at)mediaring(dot)com(dot)sg> writes:
>
>
>>Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
>>
>>
>
>Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
>pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
>hoops that lazy vacuum does while removing index entries.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
if i am not wrong while updating a tuple, we are also creating a new
index entry . so if the
tuple is dead then the index entry pointing it also a dead index tuple.
so even if dead index tuple is not
removed then also it should not break thing, since the dead index tuple
will not be used, am i correct?.
what is reason why the dead heap tuples are maintained in a linked list
?. since for every dead heap tuple there
is a corresponding dead index tuple.
Regards
jana
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-11 05:51:21 | Re: Reusing Dead Tuples: |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2002-12-11 05:17:11 | Re: DB Tuning Notes for comment... |