| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT latest patch - version 8 |
| Date: | 2007-07-13 16:10:58 |
| Message-ID: | 22798.1184343058@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> A much simpler approach would be to try to acquire the vacuum lock, and
>>> compact the page the usual way, and fall back to a cold update if we
>>> can't get the lock immediately.
>>
>> Seems like that could work.
> I just realized that there's a big problem with that. The process doing
> the update surely holds a pin on the buffer itself. Needs more thought..
So does VACUUM when it's trying to lock a page, no? In any case we
could surely make an extra parameter to LockBufferForCleanup if it
really needs to distinguish the cases.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-07-13 16:15:59 | Re: HOT latest patch - version 8 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-07-13 16:00:05 | Re: HOT latest patch - version 8 |