Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1L6RaUbzN7W7e3dSyNFKAWFq7NF0E7q-rjc1Br+rFbp-g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Okay, I can try, but note that currently there is no test related to
>> "snapshot too old" for any other indexes.
>
> Wow, that's surprising.  It seems the snapshot_too_old test only
> checks that this works for a table that has no indexes.  Have you,
> anyway, tested it manually?
>

Yes, I have tested in manually.  I think we need to ensure that the
modified tuple falls on the same page as old tuple to make the test
work.  The slight difficulty with the index is to ensure the modified
tuple to be inserted into same page as old tuple, this is more true
with hash indexes.  Also, for heap, I think it relies on hot pruning
stuff and for index we need to perform manual vacuum.  Basically, if
we want we can write a test for index, but not sure if it is worth the
pain to write for hash index when the test for btree is not there.



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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] dblink leaks unnamed connections
Следующее
От: David Rowley
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken