| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-26 16:06:00 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579011F007F@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > head of the chain yet. With an index scan, finding the head is
easy,
> > but for a sequential scan, it seems more difficult, and we don't
have
> > any free space in the tail of the chain to maintain a pointer to the
head.
>
> Thinking some more, there will need to be a bit to uniquely
> identify the head of a CITC.
I don't think so. It would probably be sufficient to impose an order on
the CITC.
e.g. the oldest tuple version in the CITC is the head.
(An idea just in case we can't spare a bit :-)
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-26 16:21:01 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | PFC | 2006-06-26 15:55:08 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC, and compression |