From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(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>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
Date: | 2010-03-27 19:36:47 |
Message-ID: | 1269718607.3684.1967.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 19:15 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > It appears that in practice many of the index items point to heap items
> > that are LP_DEAD. So for the purposes of accessing a heap tuple's xmin,
> > then we're both right. To the current purpose the tuple has been
> > removed, though you are also right: its stub remains.
>
> If we're pruning an index entry to a heap tuple that has been HOT
> pruned wouldn't the HOT pruning record have already conflicted with
> any queries that could see it?
Quite probably, but a query that started after that record arrived might
slip through. We have to treat each WAL record separately.
Do you agree with the conjecture? That LP_DEAD items can be ignored
because their xid would have been earlier than the latest LP_NORMAL
tuple we find? (on any page).
Or is a slightly less strong condition true: we can ignore LP_DEAD items
on a page that is also referenced by an LP_NORMAL item.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-03-27 22:39:45 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-03-27 19:15:37 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-27 20:11:37 | Re: join removal |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-27 19:30:51 | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |