From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Skip all-visible pages during second HeapScan of CIC |
Date: | 2017-03-03 23:03:37 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkaE7N_BusuS+zPj3TzaR8DMdCLKgxkuZ91WUWPuUAXrg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-02-28 19:12:03 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> Since VM bits are only set during VACUUM which conflicts with CIC on the
>> relation lock, I don't see any risk of incorrectly skipping pages that the
>> second scan should have scanned.
>
> I think that's true currently, but it'd also prevent us from doing that
> in additional places. Which, in my opinion, we really should (and I
> believe that's realistically achievable). Thus I really don't want to
> base the correctness of CIC - a relatively infrequent operation - on the
> assumption that no VM bits can be set concurrenty due to the SUE lock.
I agree.
FWIW, the extra time that CIC takes over a plain CI is much reduced these days.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-03 23:06:51 | Re: Skip all-visible pages during second HeapScan of CIC |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-03 22:54:36 | Re: Skip all-visible pages during second HeapScan of CIC |