| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UNDO and in-place update |
| Date: | 2016-11-25 14:35:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1++tcwfxvnCV5vTn8OVs26RYfWSd1i_8kD0RdEdGN7hMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>
> Another way to do is to write UNDO log for split operation (with exact
> record locations on pages that are split) so that you don't need to
> perform this expensive search operation. I can understand writing
> UNDO for split could be costly but so is writing WAL for it. I think
> for UNDO, we should follow a generic rule as for heap
>
typo.
/heap/WAL
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-11-25 15:40:10 | Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-11-25 14:33:04 | Re: UNDO and in-place update |