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

From Vladimir Borodin
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Date
Msg-id D0866ED7-3EFB-4D09-9288-412D26C55101@simply.name
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

31 янв. 2017 г., в 9:50, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> написал(а):

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com> wrote:
I'll summarize here my state of studying concurrent methods of page unlinking.

GIN B-tree does not have "high key". That means, that rightmost key on
a page is maximal for the non-leaf page.
But I do not see anything theoretical in a way of implementation of
Lanin and Shasha`s methods of page merging, with slight modifications.
Their paper does not even mention high key(high fence key in papers by
Goetz Graefe).

But it's not a simple task due to large portions of shared code
between entry tree and posting tree.

Also, I do not see a reason why this method can be practically
superior to proposed patch.

Currently, I do not have resources to implement a proof of concept for
fully concurrent page unlinking to make benchmarking.

I am marking this patch as returned with feedback.

Michael, sorry, but why? If I understood everything right, the main question from Jeff was why is it implemented in such way? And Jeff wanted to see other ways of solving the problem. Andrew wrote about them above and it seems that implementing them would be quite expensive and without any obvious win. I would rather expect some reaction from Jeff or may be someone else, so shouldn’t it be marked as «Ready for committer» or at least «Moved to next CF»?

--
Michael


--
May the force be with you…

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Haribabu Kommi
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Multi-tenancy with RLS
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree