From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HOT readme missing documentation on summarizing index handling |
Date: | 2023-07-07 16:34:09 |
Message-ID: | CAEze2Wg5wskL3vPLV4nwv_Eu8x0sJ2DSLMB4rMJ32XhTgWWsgw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 00:14, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, README.HOT should have been updated, and I see no reason not to
> backpatch this to v16. Barring objections, I'll do that tomorrow.
>
> I have two suggesting regarding the README.HOT changes:
>
> 1) I'm not entirely sure it's very clear what "referential integrity of
> indexes across tuple updates" actually means. I'm afraid "referential
> integrity" may lead readers to think about foreign keys. Maybe it'd be
> better to explain this is about having index pointers to the new tuple
> version, etc.
>
> 2) Wouldn't it be good to make it a bit more explicit we now have three
> "levels" of HOT:
>
> (a) no indexes need update
> (b) update only summarizing indexes
> (c) update all indexes
>
> The original text was really about on/off, and I'm not quite sure the
> part about "exception" makes this very clear.
Agreed on both points. Attached an updated version which incorporates
your points.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Neon (https://neon.tech)
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Add-documentation-in-README.HOT-for-handling-summ.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-07-07 16:52:33 | Re: DecodeInterval fixes |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-07-07 16:32:58 | Re: [17] CREATE COLLATION default provider |