Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavan Deolasee
Subject Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3
Date
Msg-id 2e78013d0702220407p204c6a0bt7b6734d04c6a40fd@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3  ("Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>)
Responses Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3  ("Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 2/22/07, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> wrote:

> > I very much like Hannu's idea, but it does present some issues.
> >
> >
> I too liked Hannu's idea initially, but Tom raised a valid
> concern that it does not address the basic issue of root
> tuples. According to the idea, a DEAD root tuple can be used
> for a subsequent update of the same row.

If you are reusing the existing slot of a root tuple how will that
slot likely have room for an extra pointer and a live tuple ?
If the idea does not cover root reuse we don't need pointers.

Hannu talked about using one of xmin/xmax for storing
back-pointers. There were objections to that since it breaks
the xmax/xmin matching robustness that we have today.
 
Imho we should follow the swing idea.

Yes, thats one option. Though given a choice I would waste
four bytes in the heap-page than inserting a new index entry.
The heap tuples can be vacuumed rather easily than the index
entries which, if I am mistaken, can not be reused even after
marked LP_DELETEd.

Thanks,
Pavan

--

EnterpriseDB     http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: SCMS question
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: SCMS question