From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune |
Date: | 2012-12-19 18:52:30 |
Message-ID: | 19868.1355943150@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If we start generating a lot of useless WAL activity and I/O as
>> a result of thrashing the all-visible bit, it won't be so tolerable
>> anymore.
> What if we wrap that into the WAL generated by HOT prune itself ?
What WAL? The case we're worried about here is that there's nothing
else for HOT prune to do.
>> I think my core point still stands: the way that HOT pruning is done now
>> is an artifact of having wanted to shoehorn it into the system with
>> minimum changes. Which was reasonable at the time given the
>> experimental status of the feature, but now it's time to reconsider.
> ISTM that you already have concret ideas about what are those places
> where HOT prune would be more effective.
No, I don't; I'm just suggesting that we ought to think outside the box
of the way it's being done now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-19 18:58:37 | Re: Review of Row Level Security |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-19 18:47:15 | Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1 |