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 11:02:18 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002250302r51ba91a7q5aa8c1bf14c6a6d8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes. When a bit is cleared, that's OK, because a cleared bit just means
> "you need to check visibility in the heap tuple". When a bit is set,
> however, it's important that it doesn't hit the disk before the
> corresponding heap page update. That's why visibilitymap_set() sets the
> LSN on the page.
>
> OK. Say a session doing the update, which is the fist update on the page,
resets the PD_ALL_VISIBLE and just before updating the visibility map
crashes. The subsequent inserts/updates/deletes, will see the PD_ALL_VISIBLE
flag cleared and never care to update the visibility map, but actually it
would have created tuples in index and table. So won't this return wrong
results?
Again it is not clear from your documentation, how you have handled this
situation?
Thanks,
Gokul.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-25 11:38:55 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2010-02-25 11:01:20 | plperl.on_init - bug or just me? |