On 2019-03-29 16:20:54 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 16:12, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
>
> > On 2019-03-29 15:58:14 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 15:29, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > > That's far from a trivial feature imo. It seems quite possible that
> > we'd
> > > > end up with increased overhead, because the current logic can get away
> > > > with only doing hint bit style writes - but would that be true if we
> > > > started actually replacing the item pointers? Because I don't see any
> > > > guarantee they couldn't cross a page boundary etc? So I think we'd need
> > > > to do WAL logging during index searches, which seems prohibitively
> > > > expensive.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Don't see that.
> > >
> > > I was talking about reusing the first 4 bytes of an index tuple's
> > > ItemPointerData,
> > > which is the first field of an index tuple. Index tuples are MAXALIGNed,
> > so
> > > I can't see how that would ever cross a page boundary.
> >
> > They're 8 bytes, and MAXALIGN often is 4 bytes:
> >
>
> xids are 4 bytes, so we're good.
I literally went on to explain why that's not sufficient? You can't
*just* replace the block number with an xid. You *also* need to set a
flag denoting that it's an xid and dead now. Which can't fit in the same
4 bytes. You either have to set it in the IndexTuple's t_info, or or in
the ItemIdData's lp_flags. And both can be on a different sectors. If
the flag persists, and the xid doesn't you're going to interpret a block
number as an xid - not great; but even worse, if the xid survives, but
the flag doesn't, you're going to access the xid as a block - definitely
not ok, because you're going to return wrong results.
Greetings,
Andres Freund