Tom Lane wrote:
> "Pavan Deolasee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Any thoughts on the overall approach ?
> Fragile and full of race conditions :-(.

Yes, it looks a bit complex. But IMHO we can get around that.
Do you have any ideas in mind about doing that ?

> I thought from the beginning
> that CREATE INDEX might be a showstopper for the whole HOT concept,
> and it's starting to look like that's the case.

I remember you raised this concern very early, but I am hopeful
that we would be able to solve this. Would it be acceptable
to have a simple (though not the best) solution for this release
and then improve later on ? As I mentioned earlier, one option
is to CHILL the table, if required, holding AccessExclusive lock,
just like VACUUM FULL. I am assuming here that CREATE INDEX is
not such a common activity, isn't that true ?

> I think what we need to get away from is the assumption that HOT-ness
> for one index is the same as HOT-ness for all.  What if we only applied
> HOT to primary-key indexes, so that there was certainly not more than
> one index per table that the property applies to?

I think that will take away the ability to reuse HEAP_ONLY tuples
without vacuuming the heap and index.




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to