On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 19:15 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > It appears that in practice many of the index items point to heap items
> > that are LP_DEAD. So for the purposes of accessing a heap tuple's xmin,
> > then we're both right. To the current purpose the tuple has been
> > removed, though you are also right: its stub remains.
>
> If we're pruning an index entry to a heap tuple that has been HOT
> pruned wouldn't the HOT pruning record have already conflicted with
> any queries that could see it?
Quite probably, but a query that started after that record arrived might
slip through. We have to treat each WAL record separately.
Do you agree with the conjecture? That LP_DEAD items can be ignored
because their xid would have been earlier than the latest LP_NORMAL
tuple we find? (on any page).
Or is a slightly less strong condition true: we can ignore LP_DEAD items
on a page that is also referenced by an LP_NORMAL item.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com