Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12466.1023143659@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first?
Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > It is not that hard to implement, just messy. When the index returns a > heap row and the heap row is viewed for visibility, if _no_one_ can see > the row, the index can be marked as expired. It could be a single bit > in the index tuple, and doesn't need to be flushed to disk, though the > index page has to be marked as dirty. However, we are going to need to > flush a pre-change image to WAL so it may as well be handled as a normal > index page change. This did actually get done while you were on vacation. It does *not* need a WAL entry, on the same principle that setting XMIN_COMMITTED, XMAX_ABORTED, etc hint bits do not need WAL entries --- namely the bits can always get set again if they are lost in a crash. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: