Re: [HACKERS] WARM and indirect indexes

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jim Nasby
Тема Re: [HACKERS] WARM and indirect indexes
Дата
Msg-id 3fc2d0bc-f528-9563-b260-80fd45a56b59@BlueTreble.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] WARM and indirect indexes  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 1/11/17 8:09 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> The other thing the patch changes is how update-chain is maintained. In
> order to quickly find the root offset while updating a tuple, we now
> store the root offset in the t_ctid field of the last tuple in the chain
> and use a separate bit to mark end-of-the-chain (instead of relying of
> t_ctid = t_self check). That can lead to problems if chains are not
> maintained or followed correctly. These changes are in the first patch
> of the patch series and if you've any suggestions on how to improve that
> or solidify chain following, please let me know. I was looking for some
> way to hide t_ctid field to ensure that the links are only accessed via
> some standard API.

AIUI, that's going to affect every method of heap access except for 
index scans that can skip the heap due to being all-visible. That means 
the risk here is comparable to the MXID changes.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issueswith combined queries
Следующее
От: Jesper Pedersen
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support