Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is there a particular reason why CLUSTER isn't MVCC-safe? It seems to me that it would be trivial to fix, by using SnapshotAny instead of SnapshotNow, and not overwriting the xmin/xmax with the xid of the cluster command.

The reason it's not trivial is that you also have to preserve the t_ctid
links of update chains.  If you look into VACUUM FULL, a very large part
of its complexity is that it moves update chains as a unit to make that
possible.  (BTW, I believe the problem Pavan Deolasee reported yesterday
is a bug somewhere in there --- it looks to me like sometimes the same
update chain is getting copied multiple times.)

Ah, that's it. Thanks.

The easiest solution I can think of is to skip newer versions of updated rows when scanning the old relation, and to fetch and copy all tuples in the update chain to the new relation whenever you encounter the first tuple in the chain.

To get a stable view of what's the first tuple in chain, you need to get the oldest xmin once at the beginning, and use that throughout the operation. Since we take an exclusive lock on the table, no-one can insert new updated tuples during the operation, and all updaters are finished before the lock is granted.

Those tuples wouldn't be in the cluster order, though, but that's not a big deal.

  Heikki Linnakangas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
      choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to