Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > You can't truncate a tuple to just the header, or at least it's not
> > going to be very useful to do it, unless you can also move other tuples
> > to coalesce the free space on the page. Which means you need a
> > VACUUM-strength page lock. If you're trying to do this in foreground
> > queries, you get into the same performance and deadlock issues I already
> > mentioned. And I think the net-increase-in-WAL-traffic point would
> > apply too, since VACUUM will still need to clean the page when it
> > removes the header.
> Well, I was only thinking of having the bgwriter do it in the
> background, just bfore writing the block to disk. I'm hoping that it
> only tries to write out pages not recently used, so hopefully there
> would be very little contention there.
> And perhaps you can avoid the xlogging for the same reason as I
> suggested above.
Non-visible members of the SITC chains could also removed by the
background writer. Adding to the chain does not require a vacuum-level
lock; only reusing the space requires it.
The thing that has always held us back from more aggressive tuple reuse
is the inability of vacuum to do small cleanups --- it has to scan
indexes so it wants to do many pages at once. If you have SITC, there
are new possibilities for tuple reuse.
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marc Munro||Date: 2006-06-29 20:17:20|
|Subject: Re: Index corruption|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-06-29 18:54:01|
|Subject: Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method|