Re: [HACKERS] UNDO and in-place update

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Also, I'm thinking the bit could be stored in the line pointer rather
>>> than the tuple, because with this design we don't need
>>> LP_UNUSED/LP_NORMAL/LP_REDIRECT/LP_DEAD any more.  We could use one
>>> bit to indicate dead or not-dead and the second bit to indicate
>>> recently-modified or not-recently-modified.  With that approach,
>>> clearing the bits only requires iterating over the line pointer array,
>>> not the tuples themselves.
>>
>> I think this can help in mitigating the overhead.  However, now
>> another question is if we just unset it when there is no other active
>> transaction operating on the current page except for current
>> transaction, then will that tuple be considered all-visible?  I think
>> no transaction operating on a page can't be taken as a guarantee for
>> tuple to be marked as all-visible. If that is true, then what is
>> advantage of clearing the bit?
>
> That's kind of a strange question.  The mission of this proposed bit
> is to tell you whether the transaction(s) referenced in the page's
> UNDO pointer have modified that tuple.  If you didn't clear it when
> you reset the UNDO pointer to a new transaction, then the bit would
> always be set for every tuple on the page and it would be completely
> useless.  (I mean, the tuples had to be inserted originally, right?
> So the bit was set then.  And if you never clear it, it will just stay
> set.)
>
> As to your other questions: If the page's UNDO pointer isn't valid,
> then the whole page is all-visible.  If the page's UNDO pointer is
> valid, then any tuple for which the bit is not set is all-visible.
>

Okay, I see the point.  I think here UNDO pointer can be marked
invalid either during page-pruning or vacuum.

Another point which I think is not discussed till now is, how the
locking will work.  As of now, we first lock the tuple and then xid on
which we have to wait. In the new design, we don't know the xid which
has updated the tuple and I am not sure there is any easy way to find
that information.  One idea could be that we have some fixed number of
slots (i think we can make it variable as well, but for simplicity,
lets consider it as fixed) in the page header which will store the
offset to the transaction id inside a TPD entry of the page.  Consider
a TPD entry of page contains four transactions, so we will just store
enough information in heap page header to reach the transaction id for
these four transactions. I think each such page header slot could be
three or four bits long depending upon how many concurrent
transactions we want to support on a page after which a new
transaction has to wait (I think in most workloads supporting
simultaneous eight transactions on a page should be sufficient).
Then we can have an additional byte (or less than byte) in the tuple
header to store lock info which is nothing but an offset to the slot
in the page header.   We might find some other locking technique as
well, but I think keeping it same as current has benefit.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com