Hi,
I don't have time to answer the other emails today (elections,
climbing), but maybe you could clarify the below?
On 2013-09-21 17:07:11 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I'll find it very difficult to accept any implementation that is going
> >> to bloat things even worse than our upsert looping example.
> >
> > How would any even halfway sensible example cause *more* bloat than the
> > upsert looping thing?
>
> I was away in Chicago over the week, and didn't get to answer this.
> Sorry about that.
>
> In the average/uncontended case, the subxact example bloats less than
> all alternatives to my design proposed to date (including the "unborn
> heap tuple" idea Robert mentioned in passing to me in person the other
> day, which I think is somewhat similar to a suggestion of Heikki's
> [1]). The average case is very important, because in general
> contention usually doesn't happen.
I can't follow here. Why does e.g. the promise tuple approach bloat more
than the subxact example?
The protocol is roughly:
1) Insert index pointer containing an xid to be waiting upon instead of the target tid into all indexes
2) Insert heap tuple, we can be sure there's no conflict now
3) Go through the indexes and repoint the item to point to the tid of the heaptuple instead of the xid.
There's zero heap or index bloat in the uncontended case. In the
contended case it's just the promise tuples from 1) that are inserted
before the conflict is detected. Those can be marked as dead when the
conflict happened.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services