On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 07:35:30PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Attached is v4, which fixes a couple of relatively minor bugs. There > are still things to tackle before this is committable, but coding review > of the new executor node would be welcome. > > The big remaining item is still fitting the PK data in TIDs 6 bytes. > I've been looking at reworking the btree code to allow for an arbitrary > size; it doesn't look impossible although it's going to be rather > invasive. Also, vacuuming: my answer continues to be that the killtuple > interface should be good enough, but it's possible to vacuum the index > separately from vacuuming the table anyway if you do a full scan and > check the PK tuples for each indirect tuple. > > This patch implements killtuple: a scan that sees an indirect tuple not > returning anything from the heap marks the tuple as LP_DEAD. Later, > when the page is about to be split, those tuples are removed. > > I also have a note in the code about not inserting an indirect tuple > when an identical one already exists. This is a correctness issue: we > return duplicated heap rows in certain cases.
I still question the value of this patch as it requires user configuration vs. more aggressive HOT/WARM updates. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
