|From:||Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>|
|Cc:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
06.04.2016 16:15, Anastasia Lubennikova :
> 06.04.2016 03:05, Peter Geoghegan:
>> * There is some stray whitespace within RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap().
>> I think you should have updated it with code, though. I don't think
>> it's necessary for HOT updates to work, but I think it could be
>> necessary so that we don't need to get a row lock that blocks
>> non-conflict foreign key locking (see heap_update() callers). I think
>> you need to be careful for non-key columns within the loop in
>> RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap(), basically, because it seems to still go
>> through all columns. UPSERT also must call this code, FWIW.
>> * I think that a similar omission is also made for the replica
>> identity stuff in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap(). Some thought is needed
>> on how this patch interacts with logical decoding, I guess.
> Good point. Indexes are everywhere in the code.
> I missed that RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() is used not only for REINDEX.
> I'll discuss it with Theodor and send an updated patch tomorrow.
As promised, updated patch is in attachments.
But, I'm not an expert in this area, so it needs a 'critical look'.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Magnus Hagander||2016-04-06 15:48:02||Re: [CommitFest App] Feature request -- review e-mail additions|
|Previous Message||Fujii Masao||2016-04-06 14:41:58||Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2|