Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavan Deolasee
Subject Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?
Date
Msg-id 2e78013d0703101033u543aa3fbve40a4f647a1046dc@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 3/10/07, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:

scan_heap() would usually have collected the DEAD tuple in offsets_free
list. How do you plan to check if the tuple is in middle on a chain which has
RECENTLY_DEAD tuple before the tuple under check ? Don't we need
to collect the TID of the DEAD tuple in the vtlinks[] as well to establish
the backward chains ?


Now that I read your first mail more carefully, I think you are suggesting
that we move the tuple chains in pieces where each piece is terminated
when we see a DEAD tuple. In that case, we don't need any of what
I said above. Also, ISTM that HOT would work fine with this change
and we may not need to the xmin-hack I described earlier. So it makes
me comfortable. Well, at least until I take your modified code, merge
HOT-changes and rerun the crazy UPDATE/VACUUM FULL intensive
tests :)

Thanks,
Pavan



--

EnterpriseDB     http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Pavan Deolasee"
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?