From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Josef Šimánek <josef(dot)simanek(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Don't block HOT update by BRIN index |
Date: | 2021-07-12 20:45:24 |
Message-ID: | 4a8c86eb-d570-ec78-b9af-66f218fae820@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/12/21 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jul-12, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> 2) Do we actually need to calculate and store hotblockingattrs
>> separately in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap? It seems to me it's either
>> NULL (with amhotblocking=false) or equal to indexattrs. So why not to
>> just get rid of hotblockingattr and rd_hotblockingattr, and do something
>> like
>>
>> case INDEX_ATTR_BITMAP_HOT_BLOCKING:
>> return (amhotblocking) ? bms_copy(rel->rd_hotblockingattr) : NULL;
>>
>> I haven't tried, so maybe I'm missing something?
>
> ... What? I thought the whole point is that BRIN indexes do not cause
> the columns to become part of this set, while all other index types do.
> If you make them both the same, then there's no point.
>
Well, one of us is confused and it might be me ;-)
The point is that BRIN is the only index type with amhotblocking=false,
so it would return NULL (and thus it does not block HOT). All other
indexes AMs have amblocking=true and so should return rd_indexattr (I
forgot to change that in the code chunk).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josef Šimánek | 2021-07-12 20:45:30 | Re: [PATCH] Don't block HOT update by BRIN index |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-07-12 20:44:53 | Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] Fix detection of preadv/pwritev support for OSX. |