Re: visibility maps

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: visibility maps
Дата
Msg-id 27633.1229521261@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: visibility maps  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: visibility maps  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> I don't quite understand this paragraph. If there's any DEAD tuples or
>> line-pointers, the all-visible flag can't be set.

> No, I am saying, HOT-prune removes all DEAD tuples from the page (not
> the DEAD line pointers though) and that's why you may not need two
> vacuums for the visibility bit to set because the first phase of
> vacuum would not find any DEAD tuples.

I think what you are suggesting is that we should set the visibility map
bit while dead line pointers (tombstones) still remain.  If that's what
you meant it's a bad idea.  It would be correct in the sense of "there
are no invisible rows here", but it's not correct in the sense of "there
is no work for vacuum to do here".  In particular that would be the
wrong definition for the hoped-for future feature of index-only scans.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: parallel restore vs. windows
Следующее
От: "Pavan Deolasee"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: visibility maps