Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Date: 2010-02-25 07:19:05
Message-ID: 9362e74e1002242319w18d0524di21fd13ba5dabfc4f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> The WAL record of the heap insert/update/delete contains a flag
> indicating that the visibility map needs to be updated too. Thus no need
> for a separate WAL record.
>
>
Heikki,
Have you considered these cases?
a) The current WAL architecture makes sure that the WAL Log is written
before the actual page flush( i believe ). But you are changing that
architecture for Visibility maps. Visibility map might get flushed out
before the corresponding WAL gets written. I think you would then suggest
full page writes here
b) Say for a large table, you have multiple buffers of visibility map, then
there is a chance that one buffer gets flushed to the disk and the other
doesn't. If the WAL records are not in place, then this leads to a time
inconsistent visibility map.
c) If you are going to track all the WAL linked with a buffer of visibility
map, then you need to introduce another synchronization in the critical
path.

May be i am missing something? I am asking these questions only out of
curiosity.

Thanks,
Gokul.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-02-25 07:31:45 Re: Assertion failure in walreceiver
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2010-02-25 03:02:18 Re: Streaming replication and pg_xlogfile_name()