Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1264971869.13782.8736.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 15:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > > At the moment a btree delete record will cancel every request > > 1. no matter how long they have been running > > 2. no matter if they haven't accessed the index being cleaned (they > > might later, is the thinking...) > > That seems seriously horrid. What is the rationale for #2 in > particular? I would hope that at worst this would affect sessions > that are actively competing for the index being cleaned. That is exactly the feedback I received from many other people and why I prioritised the relation-specific conflict patch. It's worse that that because point 2 effects WAL cleanup records for the heap also. The rationale is that a session *might* in the future access a table, and if it did so it would receive the wrong answer *potentially*. This is the issue I have been discussing for a long time now, in various forms, starting on-list in Aug 2008. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: