| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Nikhil S <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |
| Date: | 2007-02-09 17:29:12 |
| Message-ID: | 45CCAF68.4000308@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:39 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ISTM we could fix that by extending the index VACUUM interface to
>>> include two concepts: aside from "remove these TIDs when you find them",
>>> there could be "replace these TIDs with those TIDs when you find them".
>>> This would allow pointer-swinging to one of the child tuples, after
>>> which the old root could be removed.
>> Implementing the "replace these TIDs" operation atomically would be
>> simple, except for the new bitmap index am. It should be possible there
>> as well, but if the old and new tid happen to be on a different bitmap
>> page, it requires some care to avoid deadlocks.
>
> Grouped Item Indexes cope with this easily also, yes?
Yes, as long as the old and the new tid point to the same page.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2007-02-09 17:53:23 | Re: Database backup mechanism |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-02-09 17:22:09 | Re: Proposal: TABLE functions |