From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records |
Date: | 2016-03-10 06:27:34 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSYxy1WMbE_Pf_vCPMdhbh+GcAAcZtYJXJvPQBQGjay-g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> On 1/8/16 9:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8 January 2016 at 13:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would agree except for the observation on toast indexes. I think
>>>> that's an important enough use case that perhaps we should have both.
>>>
>>> The exclusion of toast indexes is something we can remove also, I have
>>> recently discovered. When we access toast data we ignore MVCC, but we
>>> still
>>> have the toast pointer and chunkid to use for rechecking our scan
>>> results.
>>> So a later patch will add some rechecks.
>>
>> Ah, interesting, glad to hear. I take it you're pushing your patch
>> soon, then?
>
> ISTM that this patch should be "returned with feedback" or "rejected" based
> on the thread. I'm marking it "waiting for author" for the time being.
I think that we are still waiting for some input from Simon here...
Simon, are you going to finish wrapping up your other patch?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2016-03-10 06:36:20 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-03-10 06:27:09 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |