| From: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian Pflug" <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Date: | 2007-09-06 16:48:20 |
| Message-ID: | 46E02F54.6060105@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Florian Pflug wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> A rather wild idea: Could we maybe pin individual tuples, instead
> of the whole page? Then we'd just have to be careful not to move
> those when pruning during the update.
Uh, that's a huge change. We might be able to keep track of tuples that
we have references to in our own backend, but even that seems like a
non-starter to me.
Yet another idea is to add an "intent" argument (or somehow pass it out
of line) to heap_fetch. You would prune the page in heap_fetch, but only
if you're fetching for the purpose of updating the tuple.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-09-06 17:04:59 | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-09-06 16:46:09 | Re: tsearch refactorings |