On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 14:57 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:03 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> One option would be to just ignore that problem for now, and not
> >> WAL-log.
> >
> > Probably worth skipping for now, since it will cause patch conflicts if
> > you do. Are there any other interactions with Hot Standby?
> >
> > But it seems like we can sneak in an extra flag on a HEAP2_CLEAN record
> > to say "page is now all visible", without too much work.
>
> Hmm. Even if a tuple is visible to everyone on the master, it's not
> necessarily yet visible to all the read-only transactions in the slave.
Never a problem. No query can ever see the rows removed by a cleanup
record, enforced by the recovery system.
> > Does the PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag need to be set at the same time as updating
> > the VM? Surely heapgetpage() could do a ConditionalLockBuffer exclusive
> > to set the block flag (unlogged), but just not update VM. Separating the
> > two concepts should allow the visibility check speed gain to more
> > generally available.
>
> Yes, that should be possible in theory. There's no version of
> ConditionalLockBuffer() for conditionally upgrading a shared lock to
> exclusive, but it should be possible in theory. I'm not sure if it would
> be safe to set the PD_ALL_VISIBLE_FLAG while holding just a shared lock,
> though. If it is, then we could do just that.
To be honest, I'm more excited about your perf results for that than I
am about speeding up some VACUUMs.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
