From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |
Date: | 2007-03-09 16:40:54 |
Message-ID: | 45F18E16.9070001@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> We wouldn't clean up tuples that are visible to a transaction, but if
>> you have one long-running transaction like pg_dump in a database with
>> otherwise short transaction, you'll have a lot of tuples that are not
>> vacuumable because of the long-running process, but are not in fact
>> visible to any transaction.
>
> It sounds to me like you are proposing to remove the middles of update
> chains, which would break READ-COMMITTED updates initiated by the older
> transactions. Now admittedly pg_dump isn't going to issue any such
> updates, but VACUUM doesn't know that.
I was thinking of inserts+deletes. Updates are harder, you'd need to
change the ctid of the old version to skip the middle part of the chain,
atomically, but I suppose they could be handled as well.
Isolation level doesn't really matter. We just need a global view of
in-use *snapshots* in the system, serializable or not. Not that that's
an easy thing to do...
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-03-09 16:43:11 | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-09 16:36:29 | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |