Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 23:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I was wondering the same. It'd be possible to rewrite the seqscan
>> stuff so that we do the visibility tests for all the tuples on a given
>> page at once, taking the buffer content lock just once, and saving aside
>> the valid tuple IDs to return later. This should definitely be faster
>> when all the tuples actually get fetched.
> I was thinking of the brute force approach: take a complete copy of the
> block when we read the first tuple off it. That way any wierdness
> on-block is avoided until we logically attempt to read that tuple. It
> also allows us to palloc the right amount of space first time.
That occurred to me too, but I rejected it on two grounds:
* All that data copying will be expensive.
* We couldn't update tuple commit hint bits on the real page.
Also, I'm not at all sure that it's a good idea to release the buffer
pin before we're genuinely done with the page. That sort of change
would impact such things as the VACUUM interlock algorithm. Maybe it'd
be OK but I'm disinclined to mess with it for a dubious speed gain.
Even with my version of the proposal, it'd be risky to use the check-
all-in-advance approach for non-MVCC snapshots such as SnapshotNow.
I'm not sure that there are any places that would get broken by missing
tuples that weren't yet committed when the page was first touched ...
but I'm not sure there aren't, either. We could avoid this risk by
having two paths through heapgettup, though.
> Are you, or will you be implementing this?
I plan to take a look at it soon.
regards, tom lane