|From:||Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>|
|Cc:||Юрий Соколов <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
This v5 version of the patch is intended to use with
v3-0001-Make-all-nbtree-index-tuples-have-unique-keys patch .
13.07.2018 00:00, Peter Geoghegan пишет:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Andrey V. Lepikhov
> <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> Attachment contains an update for use v.2 of the 'Ensure nbtree leaf tuple
>> keys are always unique' patch.
> My v3 is still pending, but is now a lot better than v2. There were
> bugs in v2 that were fixed.
> One area that might be worth investigating is retail index tuple
> deletion performed within the executor in the event of non-HOT
> updates. Maybe LP_REDIRECT could be repurposed to mean "ghost record",
> at least in unique index tuples with no NULL values. The idea is that
> MVCC index scans can skip over those if they've already found a
> visible tuple with the same value. Also, when there was about to be a
> page split, they could be treated a little bit like LP_DEAD items. Of
> course, the ghost bit would have to be treated as a hint that could be
> "wrong" (e.g. because the transaction hasn't committed yet), so you'd
> have to go to the heap in the context of a page split, to double
> check. Also, you'd need heuristics that let you give up on this
> strategy when it didn't help.
> I think that this could work well enough for OLTP workloads, and might
> be more future-proof than doing it in VACUUM. Though, of course, it's
> still very complicated.
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Andrey Lepikhov||2018-07-23 06:47:07||Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion|
|Previous Message||Shay Rojansky||2018-07-23 06:23:38||Stored procedures and out parameters|