Re: Latest plans for Utilities with HOT
От | Pavan Deolasee |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Latest plans for Utilities with HOT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45EC40C3.10506@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Latest plans for Utilities with HOT ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Latest plans for Utilities with HOT
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:>> - VACUUM FULL - The best solution, for now, is to make VACUUM FULL> perform a reindex on all indexeson the table. Chilling may require us> to modify considerably more index entries than previously. UPDATE & WAIT> wouldbe very good, but probably should wait for the next release now,> since we now have changes to make to 4 utilities. On my way back home, I was thinking about VACUUM FULL. Is there really a problem with VACUUM FULL and HOT ? VF moves tuple chains in the table and does that while holding AccessExclusive lock on the table. If we prune the HOT-update chains (which we anyways do for lazy vacuum), we can guarantee that the entire HOT-update chain will be moved, if any of the tuples in the chain is moved. Also, when VF moves a tuple chain appropriate index entries are inserted into all the indexes. If we don't carry the HEAP_HOT_UPDATED or HEAP_ONLY_TUPLE flags to the moved location, the HOT-update chain will be broken, but that should not have any correctness problems. If VACUUM FULL crashes before completeing its operation, the original HOT-update chain would still remain valid and the new tuples will be discarded. Is there something I am missing ? Thanks, Pavan EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: