Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ignore_killed_tuples is always true

From: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ignore_killed_tuples is always true
Date: 2006-02-13 02:30:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing
> is removing functionality we might want someday.  It's not hard to
> imagine pgstattuple or VACUUM or other maintenance operations wanting
> to look at killed index entries.

I suggested it not for performance, but for simplicity of code. So if we
still need it, I agree to leave it.

Moreover, LP_DELETEed tuples might be useful for Bitmap NOT And/Or join,
not only maintenance operations. Union-side of bitmap should not contain
LP_DELETEed tuples, and Except-side should do.

ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2006-02-13 02:43:17
Subject: Re: Free WAL caches on switching segments
Previous:From: Daniel VeriteDate: 2006-02-13 02:26:17
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Number format problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group