Re: HOT WIP Patch - version 1

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: HOT WIP Patch - version 1
Date: 2007-02-14 17:57:15
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901C138C5@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> What's the verdict on relaxing the "live tuple's ctid doesn't
> change rule"? If we did allow that within a page, what would
> we need to change?

I already said this, but why would this need to be visible from the
outside ?

A few assumptions:
no back pointers
indexes only point at slots marked as roots (and non hot tuples)

During vacuum, you swap the tuples and keep a stub at the slot that the
user's ctid might be pointing at. You mark the stub to detect this
situation.
When a select/update by ctid comes along it needs to do one step to the
root
and use that tuple instead.

It needs a second vacuum (or a per page vacuum during update) to remove
the
extra stub when it is dead and not recently dead.

I fail to see the hole.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Seltenreich 2007-02-14 17:59:44 Re: Writing triggers in C++
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2007-02-14 17:53:28 Re: HOT WIP Patch - version 1