From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Rethinking hint bits WAS: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal |
Date: | 2010-11-15 18:16:45 |
Message-ID: | 4CE1790D.9070805@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg, Tom,
> We *already* have separate bitmap outside the table for transaction
> commit bits. It's the clog.
You didn't read my whole e-mail. I talk about the CLOG further down.
> Josh is ignoring the proposal that is on the table and seems actually
> workable, which is to consult the visibility map during index-only
> scans. For mostly-static tables this would save trips to the heap for
> very little extra I/O. The hard part is to make the VM reliable, but
> that is not obviously harder than making separately-stored hint bits
> reliable.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that it doesn't unblock the other 4
features/improvements I mentioned, *all* of which would be unblocked by
not storing the hint bits in the table, whatever means we use to do so.
You, for your part, are consistently ignoring these other issues.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-15 18:24:48 | Re: Re: Rethinking hint bits WAS: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-15 17:48:58 | Re: Count backend self-sync calls |