From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:br...@momjian.us] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:06 PM On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 05:21:06PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04.08.2012 11:01, Amit Kapila wrote: >>Missed one point which needs to be handled is pg_upgrade > > I don't think there's anything to do for pg_upgrade. This doesn't > change the on-disk data format, just the WAL format, and pg_upgrade > isn't sensitive to WAL format changes.
>Correct. Thanks Bruce and Heikki for this information. I need your feedback on the below design point, as it will make my further work on this performance issue more clear. Also let me know if the explanation below is not clear, I shall try to use some examples to explain my point. Currently the solution for fixed length columns cannot handle the case of variable length columns and NULLS. The reason is for fixed length columns there is no need of diff technology between old and new tuple, however for other cases it will be required. For fixed length columns, if we just note the OFFSET, LENGTH, VALUE of changed columns of new tuple in WAL, it will be sufficient to do the replay of WAL. However to handle other cases we need to use diff mechanism. Can we do something like if the changed columns are fixed length and doesn't contain NULL's, then store [OFFSET, LENGTH, VALUE] format in WAL and for other cases store diff format. This has advantage that for Updates containing only fixed length columns don't have to pay penality of doing diff between new and old tuple. Also we can do the whole work in 2 parts, one for fixed length columns and second to handle other cases. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
