Tom Lane wrote:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please see the version 14 of HOT patch attached.
I expected to find either a large new README, or some pretty substantial
additions to existing README files, to document how this all works.
Here's an updated version of the README I
On 8/31/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, now that I think about it there is no other
fundamental reason to not support HOT on system tables. So we
can very well do what you are suggesting.
On second thought, I wonder if there is really much to gain by
supporting HOT on
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 12:53:51PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On 8/31/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, now that I think about it there is no other
fundamental reason to not support HOT on system tables. So we
can very well do what you are suggesting.
On
Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, I'm 100% in favor of pushing system catalog HOT until later; it's
be silly to risk not getting hot in 8.3 because of catalog HOT.
I see this the other way around: if it doesn't work on system catalogs,
it probably doesn't work, period. I'm not in favor
On 9/1/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this the other way around: if it doesn't work on system catalogs,
it probably doesn't work, period. I'm not in favor of treating the
catalogs differently.
Now that I hear you, I know what to do next :-)
I don't think there is any
On 8/30/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please see the version 14 of HOT patch attached.
I expected to find either a large new README, or some pretty substantial
additions to existing README files, to document how this all works.
The comments
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please see the version 14 of HOT patch attached.
I expected to find either a large new README, or some pretty substantial
additions to existing README files, to document how this all works.
The comments included do
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please see the version 14 of HOT patch attached.
I expected to find either a large new README, or some pretty substantial
additions to existing README files, to document how
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are right - a new index might mean that an existing HOT chain
is broken as far as the new index is concerned. The way we address
that is by indexing the root tuple of the chain, but the index key is
extracted from the last tuple in the chain. The
On 8/30/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are right - a new index might mean that an existing HOT chain
is broken as far as the new index is concerned. The way we address
that is by indexing the root tuple of the chain, but the index key is
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't the extra machination for C.I.C. just useless complication?
What's the point of avoiding creation of new broken HOT chains when
you still have to deal with existing ones?
IMHO the extra step in C.I.C simplifies the index build.
If you make the
Tom Lane escribió:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 8/30/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that works --- what if the last tuple in the chain isn't
committed good yet? If its inserter ultimately rolls back, you've
indexed the wrong value.
I am confused.
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane escribió:
Not if someone else releases lock before committing.
FWIW, a red flag raised for me here, though maybe it is irrelevant or
unimportant. Currently, VACUUM acquires an exclusive lock for
truncating the table. The lock is kept till
On 8/31/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not if someone else releases lock before committing. Which I remind you
is a programming technique we use quite a lot with respect to the system
catalogs. I'm not prepared to guarantee that there is no
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please see the version 14 of HOT patch attached.
I expected to find either a large new README, or some pretty substantial
additions to existing README files, to document how this all works.
The comments included do not represent nearly enough
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see that you have a separate bitmapset to keep track of indexes on
system attributes. But having an index on a system attribute doesn't
make any sense, does it?
Counterexample: OID.
regards, tom lane
On 8/20/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see that you have a separate bitmapset to keep track of indexes on
system attributes. But having an index on a system attribute doesn't
make any sense, does it?
Counterexample: OID.
Right.
17 matches
Mail list logo