Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200702092310.l19NACM02966@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > Removing the root tuple will require a VACUUM *FULL*. > > That seems unacceptable ... it won't take too long for your table to > fill up with stubs, and we don't want to return to the bad old days > when periodic VACUUM FULL was unavoidable. > > ISTM we could fix that by extending the index VACUUM interface to > include two concepts: aside from "remove these TIDs when you find them", > there could be "replace these TIDs with those TIDs when you find them". > This would allow pointer-swinging to one of the child tuples, after > which the old root could be removed. This has got the same atomicity > problem as for CREATE INDEX, because it's the same thing: you're > de-HOT-ifying the child. So if you can solve the former, I think you > can make this work too. I need clarification here. Is removing dead heap tuple always going to require an index scan, or was this just for chilling a row (adding an index)? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: