| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |
| Date: | 2010-12-13 18:34:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4D066743.5050609@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13.12.2010 20:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Can we fix it so that each child page is updated, and its downlink
> inserted, as a separate atomic action? That'd require each intermediate
> state to be consistent and crash-safe, but I think you really need the
> intermediate states to be consistent anyway because of concurrent scans.
Yes, all the intermediate states are consistent. I'm looking at that
approach as we speak. The logic to track what we've done and what needs
to be done as the changes are propagated gets quite hairy, but in
principle it should work.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-12-13 18:49:30 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-13 18:30:55 | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |