On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:32:47PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Using Phantom Xids
> > ==
> > The idea here is to use an approach similar to what we use now: mark the
> > tuples with an Xid when it is locked. A phantom Xid is a sor
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Using Phantom Xids
> ==
> The idea here is to use an approach similar to what we use now: mark the
> tuples with an Xid when it is locked. A phantom Xid is a sort-of Xid,
> with multiple real Xids associated to it. So we mark the tupl
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 16:27 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:08:11PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > IIRC there is not another major system that spills locks to disk and
> > there's a big reason: performance is very poor. Other systems accept
> > some limitations in order
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:50:30PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > Perhaps a little delayed, but yes, I have major reservations about
> > the whole concept of spilling the lock table to disk. If you
> > implement this, I would very much like a switch to be able to turn
> > it off, somehow.
> me
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:08:11PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> IIRC there is not another major system that spills locks to disk and
> there's a big reason: performance is very poor. Other systems accept
> some limitations in order to avoid that. Oracle takes locks and holds
> them within the block
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DB2 even goes to great lengths to avoid this by offering additional
> locking modes of Cursor Stability (CS) - which only locks the rows
> currently being viewed or on which a cursor is currently placed. DB2
> would call locking everything Repeatable Read
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 18:09 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I'm seeing what can I do about spilling the lock table to disk
> > I welcome comments on the ideas outlined here. If anyone sees a
> > showstopper please let me know.
>
> Perhaps a little delayed, but yes, I have major reservations ab
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 18:09 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm seeing what can I do about spilling the lock table to disk
> I welcome comments on the ideas outlined here. If anyone sees a
> showstopper please let me know.
Perhaps a little delayed, but yes, I have major reservations about the
whol
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:19:08AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We have a problem as soon as somebody tries to delete a lot of rows from
> > a big table. We cannot possibly extend the memory requirements forever,
> > so we need to spill to disk without ha
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have a problem as soon as somebody tries to delete a lot of rows from
> a big table. We cannot possibly extend the memory requirements forever,
> so we need to spill to disk without having an in-shared-memory index.
Yes. I'm not sure that I see the
Hackers,
I'm seeing what can I do about spilling the lock table to disk
I welcome comments on the ideas outlined here. If anyone sees a
showstopper please let me know.
Notes on Spilling the Lock Table to Disk
The problem being solved here is the inherent
11 matches
Mail list logo
