Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5)
Date: 2008-11-20 15:33:02
Message-ID: 2197.1227195182@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:
> I wonder if we should refactor lazy_scan_heap() so that *all* the real work
> of collecting information about dead tuples happens only in
> heap_page_prune(). Frankly, there is only a rare chance that a tuple may
> become DEAD after the pruning happened on the page. We can ignore such
> tuples; they will be vacuumed/pruned in the next cycle.

> This would save us a second check of HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum on the tuples
> which are just now checked in heap_page_prune(). In addition, the following
> additional WAL records are then not necessary because heap_page_prune() must
> have already logged the latestRemovedXid.

I don't think you can do that. Couldn't someone else have run
heap_page_prune between vacuum's first and second visit to the page?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2008-11-20 15:34:19 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Silence compiler warning about ignored return value.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-11-20 15:31:23 Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)