Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first?
Date
Msg-id 12466.1023143659@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> It is not that hard to implement, just messy.  When the index returns a
> heap row and the heap row is viewed for visibility, if _no_one_ can see
> the row, the index can be marked as expired.  It could be a single bit
> in the index tuple, and doesn't need to be flushed to disk, though the
> index page has to be marked as dirty.  However, we are going to need to
> flush a pre-change image to WAL so it may as well be handled as a normal
> index page change.

This did actually get done while you were on vacation.  It does *not*
need a WAL entry, on the same principle that setting XMIN_COMMITTED,
XMAX_ABORTED, etc hint bits do not need WAL entries --- namely the
bits can always get set again if they are lost in a crash.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Igor Kovalenko"
Date:
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first?