Microvacuum for gist. Question about GISTPageOpaqueData flag
От | Anastasia Lubennikova |
---|---|
Тема | Microvacuum for gist. Question about GISTPageOpaqueData flag |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAP4vRV7LeB4fQQAjxvdygSdR+SbUJMy-XN=T=vg+047zaCXNAg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Microvacuum for gist. Question about
GISTPageOpaqueData flag
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
#define BTP_HAS_GARBAGE (1 << 6) /* page has LP_DEAD tuples */
I'm working on microvacuum for gist access method.
Briefly microvacuum includes two steps:
1. When search tells us that the tuple is invisible to all transactions it is marked LP_DEAD and page is marked as "has dead tuples",
2. Then, when insert touches full page which has dead tuples it calls microvacuum instead of splitting page.
You can find a kind of review here [1].
While writing patch, I found strange GISTPageOpaqueData flag - F_TUPLES_DELETED.
Its description looks like it is the same for BTP_HAS_GARBAGE
#define F_TUPLES_DELETED (1 << 2) /* some tuples on the page are dead */
But it's definitely not the same things. I found only two mentions of this flag.
Function GistMarkTuplesDeleted sets the flag after dead tuples deletion.
Do anyone need it at all? I found no place where this flag is checked.
Is it correct using of the flag?
I need an advice, what would be better:
- to add new flag like F_HAS_GARBAGE,
- or to delete all mentions of F_TUPLES_DELETED and use it in gist microvacuum.
[1] http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/public/google/gsoc2015/ivanitskiy_ilya/5629499534213120
--
Best regards,
Lubennikova Anastasia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: