Re: TOAST - why separate visibility map

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Virender Singla <virender(dot)cse(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TOAST - why separate visibility map
Date: 2021-11-19 20:31:00
Message-ID: 3098396.1637353860@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Virender Singla <virender(dot)cse(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Why do Toast tables have it's own visibility map and xmin, xmax columns etc?
> Isn't it increasing row size in a toast table and adding more complexity?

There are advantages to having the same low-level format for toast tables
as regular tables --- for example, that you can look into a toast table
for debugging purposes with normal SQL queries. Even if we weren't tied
to that format for disk-storage-compatibility reasons, I'd be disinclined
to change it.

It might be feasible to drop the visibility map for toast tables, though.
I agree that's not buying much, since ordinary queries don't consult it.
Not sure if there'd be a win proportional to the added code complexity.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-11-19 20:34:51 Re: [PATCH] Make ENOSPC not fatal in semaphore creation
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2021-11-19 20:18:37 Re: [PATCH] Make ENOSPC not fatal in semaphore creation