Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date: 2001-05-21 20:46:34
Message-ID: 8730.990477994@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> I'm not sure that the time to do projection is short though
>> --- what if there are arbitrary user-defined functions in the quals
>> or the projection targetlist?

> Well, while we are on this subject I finally should say about issue
> bothered me for long time: only "simple" functions should be allowed
> to deal with data in shared buffers directly. "Simple" means: no SQL
> queries there. Why? One reason: we hold shlock on buffer while doing
> seqscan qual - what if qual' SQL queries will try to acquire exclock
> on the same buffer?

I think we're there already: AFAICT, user-specified quals and
projections are done after dropping the buffer shlock. (Yes, I know
there's a HeapKeyTest inside heapgettup, but user quals don't get
done there.) We do still hold a pin, but that seems OK to me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brian E. Pangburn 2001-05-21 21:33:23 Thank you
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2001-05-21 20:41:33 Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem