Re: HOT - whats next ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: HOT - whats next ?
Date
Msg-id 6203.1172848099@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to HOT - whats next ?  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: HOT - whats next ?  ("Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Re: HOT - whats next ?  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> - Another problem with the current HOT patch is that it generates
>   tuple level fragmentation while reusing LP_DELETEd items when
>   the new tuple is of smaller size than the original one. Heikki
>   supported using best-fit strategy to reduce the fragmentation
>   and thats worth trying. But ISTM that we can also correct
>   row-level defragmentation whenever we run out of free space
>   and LP_DELETEd tuples while doing UPDATE. Since this does not
>   require moving tuples around, we can do this by a simple EXCLUSIVE
>   lock on the page.

You are mistaken.  To move existing tuples requires
LockBufferForCleanup, the same as VACUUM needs; otherwise some other
backend might continue to access a tuple it found previously.

How much testing of this patch's concurrent behavior has been done?
I'm wondering if any other locking thinkos are in there ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: UPSERT
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: UPSERT