From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UNDO and in-place update |
Date: | 2017-01-04 15:05:13 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tQn51OdtakXm6H7nDzs5fs7F9+zvvtr6mMF6efvAH90A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In this new system, I
> think we can't remove undo entries of heap page till we clear
> corresponding index entries. I think we need to somehow collect the
> old values from undo corresponding to index and then scan the index
> remove the index entry and after that corresponding undo entry can be
> removed.
Do we really need to keep undo for heap until index entry is not
removed? IIUC, we anyway need to revalidate the index key with heap
tuple. What I am trying the say is that if we no longer needed UNDO
for the heap page (e.g because of rollback) then we can apply the UNDO
and remove it. I agree that there will be multiple index entries will
be pointing to this tuple, but only one of them can pass the key
revalidation with the heap. isn't it?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-04 15:08:18 | Re: pgsql: Update copyright for 2017 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-04 15:05:10 | Re: pgsql: Update copyright for 2017 |