From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Why not try for a HOT update, even when PageIsFull()? |
Date: | 2021-11-22 00:29:11 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=1oCXbEbdYqHg3=fuvsnem8bsrnU_YejhSOoiHENE3fQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:51 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Hmm, I don't have any memory of introducing this; and if you look at the
> thread, you'll notice that it got there between the first patch I posted
> and the second one, without any mention of the reason. I probably got
> that code from the WARM patch series at some point, thinking that it was
> an obvious optimization; but I'm fairly certain that we didn't run any
> tailored micro-benchmark to justify it.
I suspected that it was something like that. I agree that it's
unlikely that we'll be able to do another HOT update for as long as
the page has PD_PAGE_FULL set. But that's not saying much; it's also
unlikely that heap_update will find that PD_PAGE_FULL is set to begin
with. And, the chances of successfully applying HOT again are workload
dependent.
> I certainly do not object to removing it.
I'd like to do so soon. I'll wait a few more days, in case Pavan objects.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-11-22 00:47:28 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-21 23:04:27 | Re: Windows: Wrong error message at connection termination |