| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: heap_page_prune comments |
| Date: | 2011-11-04 18:31:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYw=OsuGwz6gWzsa0gN0x8oKHqx5GPFNU3dwUXfGOLifA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Now, heap_page_prune is in a slightly different place, because it
> doesn't actually know whether the current backend is going to make an
> insertion or update in the page. If it did know that was going to
> happen, then the analogy would be exact.
OK.
> In any case, the comment in heap_page_prune is ignoring the probability
> that VACUUM will eventually visit the page and then update the FSM.
> That ought to be factored into any discussion of what to do here.
True. Unfortunately, I have no intuition on what the right thing to
do is, here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-04 18:31:24 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-04 18:28:47 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |