Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Date
Msg-id CAMp0ubcW9HwuiQRrQRDa=mkWwd4kg04vRjGRki2DUgNLPs_9zQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com> wrote:
> One idea I had that might be simpler is to use a two-stage page
> delete. The first stage would remove the link from the parent and mark
> the page deleted, but leave the right link intact and prevent
> recycling. The second stage would follow the chain of right links
> along each level, removing the right links to deleted pages and
> freeing the page to be recycled.

Do you think this approach is viable as a simplification?

Regards,   Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Variable name typo in launcher.c