Re: Do we need so many hint bits?

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Do we need so many hint bits?
Date: 2012-11-19 18:46:37
Message-ID: 1353350797.10198.134.camel@jdavis-laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 00:13 +0530, Atri Sharma wrote:

> My mistake...I thought we were more concerned about the cost of
> locking.
>
> I agree, locking many data pages simultaneously could be hazardous.
>
> This requires more thought.Maybe removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE isnt such a
> great idea after all...

As I said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not planning to introduce any
additional locking. There is already precedent in IndexOnlyNext.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-11-19 18:49:27 Re: Do we need so many hint bits?
Previous Message Atri Sharma 2012-11-19 18:43:06 Re: Do we need so many hint bits?