Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28180.1291136144@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Can we get away with not setting the LSN on the heap page, even though > we set the PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag? If we don't set the LSN, the heap page > can be flushed to disk before the WAL record, but I think that's fine > because it's OK to have the flag set in the heap page even if the VM bit > is not set. Why is that fine? It's certainly not fine from the standpoint of someone wondering why his index-only scan performs so badly. I think all this hair-splitting about cases where it's okay to have one bit set and not the other is misguided. To me, crash-safety of the VM means that its copy of the page-header bit is right. Period. Yes, it will cost something to ensure that; so what? If we don't get more than enough compensating performance gain from index-only scans, the whole patch is going to end up reverted. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: