Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131203162556.GC27105@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after
VACUUM FULL
Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:38:05PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I wonder if we ought to mark each page as all-visible in > > raw_heap_insert() when we first initialize it, and then clear the flag > > when we come across a tuple that isn't all-visible. We could try to > > set hint bits on the tuple before placing it on the page, too, though > > I'm not sure of the details. > > I went with the per-page approach because I wanted to re-use the vacuum > lazy function. Is there some other code that does this already? I am > trying to avoid yet-another set of routines that would need to be > maintained or could be buggy. This hit bit setting is tricky. > > And thanks much for the review! So, should I put this in the next commit fest? I still have an unknown about the buffer number to use here: ! /* XXX use 0 or real offset? */ ! ItemPointerSet(&(tuple.t_self), BufferIsValid(buf) ? ! BufferGetBlockNumber(buf) : 0, offnum); Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: