From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Do we need so many hint bits? |
Date: | 2012-11-16 04:37:49 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+ptW9AxDYob0p5E1PoO4CtYWsCXcNzLaw5KxL5ZOmoag@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 November 2012 22:21, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Removing those 3 hints would give us 3 more flag bits (eventually, after
>> we are sure they aren't just leftover), and it would also reduce the
>> chance that a page is dirtied for no other reason than to set them.
>
> We aren't pressed for flag bits particularly. I think the main
> attraction of this idea is precisely to reduce unnecessary page dirties,
> and so that leads me to suggest a variant: keep the four bits defined as
> now, but do not attempt to set XMIN_INVALID or XMAX_COMMITTED unless the
> page is already dirty. This would make it a straight-up trade of more
> clog consultation for fewer page dirties.
Hmm, I thought Alvaro wanted an extra flag bit for foreign key locks
but couldn't find it.
Come to think of it, why do we have XMIN_INVALID and XMAX_INVALID? We
never need both at the same time, so we can just use one...
XMIN_INVALID -> XACT_INVALID
XMAX_INVALID == XMIN_COMMITTED | XACT_INVALID
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Phil Sorber | 2012-11-16 04:38:09 | Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2012-11-16 04:34:47 | Re: logical changeset generation v3 |