From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
Date: | 2001-05-21 20:46:34 |
Message-ID: | 8730.990477994@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> I'm not sure that the time to do projection is short though
>> --- what if there are arbitrary user-defined functions in the quals
>> or the projection targetlist?
> Well, while we are on this subject I finally should say about issue
> bothered me for long time: only "simple" functions should be allowed
> to deal with data in shared buffers directly. "Simple" means: no SQL
> queries there. Why? One reason: we hold shlock on buffer while doing
> seqscan qual - what if qual' SQL queries will try to acquire exclock
> on the same buffer?
I think we're there already: AFAICT, user-specified quals and
projections are done after dropping the buffer shlock. (Yes, I know
there's a HeapKeyTest inside heapgettup, but user quals don't get
done there.) We do still hold a pin, but that seems OK to me.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brian E. Pangburn | 2001-05-21 21:33:23 | Thank you |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2001-05-21 20:41:33 | Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |