| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-26 05:17:29 |
| Message-ID: | 449F6DE9.4070101@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/25/2006 10:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> When you are using the update chaining, you can't mark that index row as
> dead because it actually points to more than one row on the page, some
> are non-visible, some are visible.
Back up the truck ... you mean in the current code base we have heap
tuples that are visible in index scans because of heap tuple chaining
but without index tuples pointing directly at them?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-26 05:49:28 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-26 02:12:01 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |