| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons |
| Date: | 2018-06-20 04:16:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzny5Ow13q56Kk6a24KmPRHH7LCWUHfGowgLfsNtFR-TyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Both values will be present in the index, but the old value will be
> delete-marked. It is correct that we can't remove the value (index
> tuple) from the index until it is truly dead (not visible to anyone),
> but during a delete or index-update operation, we need to traverse the
> index to mark the entries as delete-marked. See, at this stage, I
> don't want to go in too much detail discussion of how delete-marking
> will happen in zheap and also I am not sure this thread is the right
> place to discuss details of that technology.
I don't understand, but okay. I can provide feedback once a design for
delete marking is available.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-20 04:17:14 | Re: Add necessary package list to ldap TAP's README |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-06-20 04:09:21 | Re: Add necessary package list to ldap TAP's README |