Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two
Date: 2012-05-04 08:57:13
Message-ID: CA+U5nMK6rT1s9ChY3dv0kmBiUe7xRSr+rqQuf6FvqacgLM3x9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2 May 2012 13:41, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> So on further reflection I'm thinking it may be best just to stick
> with a hard conflict for now and see what feedback we get from beta
> testers.

Which is what I was expecting y'all to conclude once you'd looked at
the task in more detail.

And I'm happy with the concept of beta being a period where we listen
to feedback, not just bugs, and decide whether further refinements are
required.

What I think is possible is to alter the conflict as it hits the
backend. If a backend has enable_indexonly = off then it wouldn't be
affected by those conflicts anyhow. So if we simply record whether we
are using an index only plan then we'll know whether to ignore it or
abort. I think we can handle that by marking the snapshot at executor
startup time. Needs a few other pushups but not that hard.

The likelihood is that SQL that uses index only won't run for long
enough to be cancelled anyway.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2012-05-04 10:39:38 Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-05-04 07:35:26 Re: CLOG extension