On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 13:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > So do you see a problem scenario like this?
> > A, B and C separate backends:
> > A1 Reads page, some row versions are *not* marked LP_DELETE but will be
> > later when A2 happens
> > B1 VACUUM removes dead rows, just happens to be all of them
> > B2 Recycles page into FSM
> > C1 Inserts new data into old page
> > A2 Attempts to update old page to notify about dead rows (UGH!)
> Can't happen; a page cannot be recycled until all concurrent
> transactions are gone. In any case, the LP_DELETE marking code will
> certainly take care to check that the entries it's trying to mark
> are still the same ones it meant to mark.
So do you see a problem with page deletion, or not? If so, what is it?
This patch looks good to me, based upon everything said.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2006-05-03 18:08:22|
|Subject: Re: Page at a time index scan|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-05-03 17:47:55|
|Subject: Re: patch review, please: Autovacuum/Vacuum times via stats.|