Re: Phantom Command ID - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Phantom Command ID
Date
Msg-id 45125F6E.2010108@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Phantom Command ID  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Phantom Command ID  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>   
>> A big question is, do we need to implement spilling to disk?
>>     
>
> My thought is no, at least not in the first cut ... this is something
> that can be added later if it proves critical, and right at the moment
> my guess is that it never will.  The data structure design sounds fine.
>   

I thought so too.

We could also limit the size of the hash table, which takes up most of 
the memory, and only keep the latest phantom cids there. Presumably, if 
current command id is 1000, you're not likely to set cmax to 500 on any 
tuple in that transaction anymore.

--  Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Csaba Nagy
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Incrementally Updated Backup
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Phantom Command ID