| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: HOT updates & REDIRECT line pointers |
| Date: | 2012-03-22 15:16:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob9en8OQK+iejSynLzO3QcOrT+FDyHm6Nm-Y-9fepoeuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Surely it just stops you using that idea 100% of the time. I don't see
> why you can't have this co-exist with the current mechanism. So it
> doesn't kill it for the common case.
I guess you could use it if you knew that there were no DELETE or
UPDATE statements in progress on that table, but it seems like
figuring that out would be more trouble than it's worth.
> But would the idea deliver much value? Is line pointer bloat a
> problem? (I have no idea if it is/is not)
Good question. I think that all things being equal it would be worth
getting rid of, but I'm not sure it's worth paying a lot for. Maybe
when I have time I'll try to gather some statistics.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-22 16:10:15 | Re: Trivial libpq refactoring patch (was: Re: Another review of URI for libpq, v7 submission) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-03-22 13:37:46 | Re: Faster compression, again |