| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-26 12:56:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20060626125616.GE24611@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 07:17:31AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Correct! We use the same pointers used by normal UPDATEs, except we set
> a bit on the old tuple indicating it is a single-index tuple, and we
> don't create index entries for the new tuple. Index scan routines will
> need to be taught about the new chains, but because only one tuple in
> the chain is visible to a single backend, the callers should not need to
> be modified.
I suppose we would also change the index_getmulti() function to return
a set of ctids plus flags so the caller knows to follow the chains,
right? And for bitmap index scans you would only remember the page in
the case of such a tuple, since you can't be sure the exact ctid you've
got is the one you want.
Seems doable.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-26 13:06:28 | Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-26 12:45:15 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |