Re: [PATCHES] HOT WIP Patch - version 2
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] HOT WIP Patch - version 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 26769.1171983040@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: HOT WIP Patch - version 2 (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] HOT WIP Patch - version 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > Pavan Deolasee wrote: >> When following a HOT-update chain from the index fetch, if we notice that >> the root tuple is dead and it is HOT-updated, we try to prune the chain to >> the smallest possible length. To do that, the share lock is upgraded to an >> exclusive lock and the tuple chain is followed till we find a >> live/recently-dead >> tuple. At that point, the root t_ctid is made point to that tuple. In order > I assume you meant recently-dead here, rather than live/recently-dead, > because we aren't going to change live ctids, right? "Recently dead" means "still live to somebody", so those tids better not change either. But I don't think that's what he meant. I'm more worried about the deadlock possibilities inherent in trying to upgrade a buffer lock. We do not have deadlock detection for LWLocks. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: