| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Nikhil S" <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |
| Date: | 2007-02-09 17:08:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1171040933.25938.35.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:39 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > ISTM we could fix that by extending the index VACUUM interface to
> > include two concepts: aside from "remove these TIDs when you find them",
> > there could be "replace these TIDs with those TIDs when you find them".
> > This would allow pointer-swinging to one of the child tuples, after
> > which the old root could be removed.
>
> Implementing the "replace these TIDs" operation atomically would be
> simple, except for the new bitmap index am. It should be possible there
> as well, but if the old and new tid happen to be on a different bitmap
> page, it requires some care to avoid deadlocks.
Grouped Item Indexes cope with this easily also, yes?
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-02-09 17:22:09 | Re: Proposal: TABLE functions |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-02-09 17:02:29 | Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql, return can contains any expression |