"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ thinks some more... ] I guess we could use a flag array dimensioned
>> MaxHeapTuplesPerPage to mark already-processed tuples, so that you
>> wouldn't need to search the existing arrays but just index into the flag
>> array with the tuple's offsetnumber.
> We can actually combine this and the page copying ideas. Instead of copying
> the entire page, we can just copy the line pointers array and work on the copy.
I think that just makes things more complex and fragile. I like
Heikki's idea, in part because it makes the normal path and the WAL
recovery path guaranteed to work alike. I'll attach my work-in-progress
patch for this --- it doesn't do anything about the invalidation
semantics problem but it does fix the critical-section-too-big problem.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-06 18:09:32|
|Subject: Re: Intended behaviour of SET search_path with SQL functions? |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2008-03-06 17:28:14|
|Subject: Re: Psql command-line completion bug|