Re: HOT patch, missing things - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: HOT patch, missing things
Date
Msg-id 1186644277.4208.60.camel@ebony.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HOT patch, missing things  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: HOT patch, missing things  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 12:39 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:

> No, pruning removes all dead tuples, irrespective of whether they are 
> HOT or COLD updated and whether they are heap-only or not. It
> handles line pointer redirection and marks
> all dead tuples as ~LP_USED. Defragging just repairs the fragmentation
> by rearranging LP_USED tuples.
> 
> 
>         It's easily possible that 100% of the cold updates and deletes
>         are
>         removed by defragging because of HOT updates. It would be
>         pointless to 
>         trigger a VACUUM when it might find nothing to clear up. Its
>         also
>         possible that the deletes are at one end of the table and the
>         updates at
>         the other. So we really need to keep track of the effects of
>         defragging
>         dead cold updates and deletes, so they can be subtracted from
>         the cold
>         update + deletes.

Whether I got the exact details of frugging & depruning correct or not:
if a tuple version is removed, then VACUUM doesn't need to remove it
later, so any non-VACUUM removal of rows must defer a VACUUM. 

--  Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: GUC for default heap fillfactor
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure