Re: planner/optimizer question
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: planner/optimizer question
Дата
Msg-id
14614.1083428488@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: planner/optimizer question (Jochem van Dieten)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: planner/optimizer question Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl>
Re: planner/optimizer question Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Re: planner/optimizer question Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: planner/optimizer question Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl>
Re: planner/optimizer question Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: planner/optimizer question "Gary Doades" <gpd@gpdnet.co.uk>
Re: planner/optimizer question Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Re: planner/optimizer question "Jochem van Dieten" <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl>
Jochem van Dieten writes: > The moment the heap tuple is updated/deleted the visible-to-all > flag needs to be set to false again in all indexes. This is > critical, Exactly. This gets you out of the hint-bit semantics and into a ton of interesting problems, such as race conditions. (Process A determines that tuple X is visible-to-all, and goes to update the index tuple. Before it can reacquire lock on the index page, process B updates the heap tuple and visits the index to clear the flag bit. Once A obtains lock it will set the flag bit. Oops.) Basically what you are buying into with such a thing is multiple copies of critical state. It may be only one bit rather than several words, but updating it is no less painful than if it were a full copy of the tuple's commit status. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления