Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2197.1227195182@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5) ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5)
Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes: > I wonder if we should refactor lazy_scan_heap() so that *all* the real work > of collecting information about dead tuples happens only in > heap_page_prune(). Frankly, there is only a rare chance that a tuple may > become DEAD after the pruning happened on the page. We can ignore such > tuples; they will be vacuumed/pruned in the next cycle. > This would save us a second check of HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum on the tuples > which are just now checked in heap_page_prune(). In addition, the following > additional WAL records are then not necessary because heap_page_prune() must > have already logged the latestRemovedXid. I don't think you can do that. Couldn't someone else have run heap_page_prune between vacuum's first and second visit to the page? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: