From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE |
Date: | 2015-10-22 21:16:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob0y0eyBeMgn7b_RqVEnnb4HGXM3CuADXR-woub5pF5iA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It turns out it was pretty easy to set PD_ALL_VISIBLE on the new pages,
> since the code in hio that requests the relation to be extended already has
> info on the tuple's intended freeze status.
>
> Then you just need to refrain from clearing PD_ALL_VISIBLE when that tuple
> is actually written into the page. Not only because clearing would defeat
> the purpose, but also because it will cause an error--apparently the
> incipient page is not yet in a state where visibilitymap_clear is willing to
> deal with it.
Wouldn't it be better to instead fill the page with tuples first and
THEN set PD_ALL_VISIBLE?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-22 21:18:50 | Re: Change behavior of (m)xid_age |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-22 21:14:29 | Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query |