From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
Date: | 2010-03-01 06:41:09 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002282241v37c95129qd1f235312546af4@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> The transaction information on tuples take 18 bytes plus several info
> bits. It's possible just storing a subset of that would be useful but
> it's unclear. And I think it would complicate the code if it had to
> sometimes fetch the heap tuple to get the rest and sometimes doesn't.
>
Visibility map had a similar proposal and it got accepted. Fine... I think,
if you guys are going to stress so hard, then there might be some issues,
which i am not foreseeing right now.
>
> I think you have to take up a simpler project as a first project. This
> is a major overhaul of transaction information and it depends on
> understanding how a lot of different areas work -- all of which are
> very complex tricky areas to understand.
>
> Yep.. i would start by just joining in someone's project to help them out.
Thanks,
Gokul.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2010-03-01 08:26:48 | Re: psql with GSS can crash |
Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2010-03-01 06:35:39 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |