| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
| Date: | 2010-01-31 21:56:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1264974966.13782.8948.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 23:43 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> IIRC it was Greg Stark who suggested last time this was discussed that
> we could calculate the exact value for latestRemovedXid in the
> standby. When replaying the deletion record, the standby could look at
> all the heap tuples whose index pointers are being removed, to see
> which one was newest. That can be pretty expensive, involving random
> I/O, but it gives an exact value, and doesn't stress the master at
> all. And we could skip it if there's no potentially conflicting
> read-only queries running.
>
> That seems like the most user-friendly approach to me. Even though
> random I/O is expensive, surely it's better than killing queries.
Best solution, no time to do it.
Should I revoke this change?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-31 22:10:21 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-31 21:53:32 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-31 22:10:21 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-01-31 21:54:05 | Hot Standby and deadlock detection |