Re: visibility maps - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: visibility maps
Date
Msg-id 27633.1229521261@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: visibility maps  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: visibility maps  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> I don't quite understand this paragraph. If there's any DEAD tuples or
>> line-pointers, the all-visible flag can't be set.

> No, I am saying, HOT-prune removes all DEAD tuples from the page (not
> the DEAD line pointers though) and that's why you may not need two
> vacuums for the visibility bit to set because the first phase of
> vacuum would not find any DEAD tuples.

I think what you are suggesting is that we should set the visibility map
bit while dead line pointers (tombstones) still remain.  If that's what
you meant it's a bad idea.  It would be correct in the sense of "there
are no invisible rows here", but it's not correct in the sense of "there
is no work for vacuum to do here".  In particular that would be the
wrong definition for the hoped-for future feature of index-only scans.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel restore vs. windows
Next
From: "Pavan Deolasee"
Date:
Subject: Re: visibility maps