From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION 5 - time for change |
Date: | 2008-10-31 07:40:04 |
Message-ID: | 490AB654.6040409@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> ... 3b sounds good until you
>>> reflect that a genuinely variable chunk size would preclude random
>>> access to sub-ranges of a toast value.
>
>> Hm, Heikki had me convinced it wouldn't but now that I try to explain it I
>> can't get it to work. I think the idea is you start a scan at the desired
>> offset and scan until you reach a chunk which overruns the end of the desired
>> piece. However you really need to start scanning at the last chunk *prior* to
>> the desired offset.
>
> Yeah, that was my conclusion too.
Hmm, you're right. I think it can be made to work by storing the *end*
offset of each chunk. To find the chunk containing offset X, search for
the first chunk with end_offset > X.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-10-31 08:00:08 | Re: Decreasing WAL size effects |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-10-31 07:06:27 | Re: Decreasing WAL size effects |