Re: HOT patch - version 14
От | Gregory Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: HOT patch - version 14 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87myw95nor.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: HOT patch - version 14 (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
"Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > >> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes: >>> Please see the version 14 of HOT patch attached. >> >> I expected to find either a large new README, or some pretty substantial >> additions to existing README files, to document how this all works. >> The comments included do not represent nearly enough documentation. > > The Heikki and I posted a two-part README of sorts: Er, editing error there. Has a ring to it though. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-07/msg00142.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-07/msg00360.php ... >> I also don't think I believe the reasoning for not indexing >> DELETE_IN_PROGRESS hot-updated tuples: what if the index completion commits, >> but the concurrent delete rolls back? Then you've got a valid tuple that's >> not in the index. > > You're talking about the concurrent index build case? Wouldn't the second pass > pick up that tuple? I have to look back at it to see for sure. Sorry, that's misguided. The concurrent index build uses snapshots now so it can't see DELETE_IN_PROGRESS. And the non-concurrent index build has an lock so it ought to be back to the way it was before I messed with it where there was an assert against finding *_IN_PROGRESS (except as Pavan points out in the same transaction). -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: