pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:22:15 +0000
Message-ID: <1225203735.3971.167.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49070C29.9090508@enterprisedb.com>
References: <4905AE17.7090305@enterprisedb.com>
<1225193108.3971.154.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<49070C29.9090508@enterprisedb.com>
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 14:57 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:03 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> One option would be to just ignore that problem for now, and not
> >> WAL-log.
> >
> > Probably worth skipping for now, since it will cause patch conflicts if
> > you do. Are there any other interactions with Hot Standby?
> >
> > But it seems like we can sneak in an extra flag on a HEAP2_CLEAN record
> > to say "page is now all visible", without too much work.
>
> Hmm. Even if a tuple is visible to everyone on the master, it's not
> necessarily yet visible to all the read-only transactions in the slave.
Never a problem. No query can ever see the rows removed by a cleanup
record, enforced by the recovery system.
> > Does the PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag need to be set at the same time as updating
> > the VM? Surely heapgetpage() could do a ConditionalLockBuffer exclusive
> > to set the block flag (unlogged), but just not update VM. Separating the
> > two concepts should allow the visibility check speed gain to more
> > generally available.
>
> Yes, that should be possible in theory. There's no version of
> ConditionalLockBuffer() for conditionally upgrading a shared lock to
> exclusive, but it should be possible in theory. I'm not sure if it would
> be safe to set the PD_ALL_VISIBLE_FLAG while holding just a shared lock,
> though. If it is, then we could do just that.
To be honest, I'm more excited about your perf results for that than I
am about speeding up some VACUUMs.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
view thread (53+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <1225203735.3971.167.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Permalink: ../1225203735.3971.167.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/1225203735.3971.167.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndQuadrant.com, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums
In-Reply-To: <1225203735.3971.167.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox