Re: Page at a time index scan
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Page at a time index scan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1146667515.449.106.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Page at a time index scan (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Page at a time index scan
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > I'm worried about synchronization, particularly what happens if the page > > > gets deleted from under you while you don't have it pinned. On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > We need never return to a page that *could* be deleted. While scanning > > in either direction, if the complete page contains nothing but dead > > items we can simply move straight onto the next page, having updated the > > page status to half-dead. > > This is unnecessary and probably wrong. You'll need to be more specific about what you mean. Heikki's concurrent post says roughly the same thing as what I just said, AFAICS. Do you see a problem with page deletion? If so, where? > It's worth noting that all of this stuff is predicated on the assumption > that index items never move across pre-existing page boundaries, in > either direction. We are therefore going to be permanently giving up > any prospect of index space reclamation by merging partly-filled pages > (unless maybe in VACUUM FULL). We didn't know how to do that anyway, > so I don't feel too bad about it, but if indexscans don't make any > attempt to explicitly re-locate their positions then that certainly > goes out the window. Seems like a step forwards to me, even if there is still wish to go further; we've all been trying to improve this behaviour for some time, so hats off to Heikki... -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: