On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Backwards scan may break this whole concept; are you sure you've thought
it through?
I think so. The patch doesn't change the walk-left code. Do you have
something specific
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-04-30 kell 14:43, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> "Sven Suursoho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, what about this in configure:
> > if --with-python && test_iterator_app_crashes
> ># errcode(FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), errmsg(patch your python)
> >disable_iterator_feature
>
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Backwards scan may break this whole concept; are you sure you've thought
> >> it through?
>
> > I think so. The patch doesn't change the walk-left code.
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAICS we will need to return to the page for a backward scan, so we
> could just keep the pin the whole way. It's not possible to cache the
> left page pointer because block splits to our immediate left can update
> them even after we read the page content
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I'm worried about synchronization, particularly what happens if the page
> > > gets deleted from under you while you don't have it pinned.
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We n
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are optimizing the wrong thing here. If we choose not to mark an
> entry dead then we will pay for that omission on every future scan of
> the same entry. I don't think that outweighs the (doubtles
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is unnecessary and probably wrong.
> You'll need to be more specific about what you mean.
There is no point in marking a page half-dead, as that doesn't save
anyone else from visiting it, and it's
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This is unnecessary and probably wrong.
>
> > You'll need to be more specific about what you mean.
>
> There is no point in marking a page half-
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So do you see a problem scenario like this?
> A, B and C separate backends:
> A1 Reads page, some row versions are *not* marked LP_DELETE but will be
> later when A2 happens
> B1 VACUUM removes dead rows, just happens to be all of them
> B2 Rec
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 13:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So do you see a problem scenario like this?
>
> > A, B and C separate backends:
> > A1 Reads page, some row versions are *not* marked LP_DELETE but will be
> > later when A2 happens
> > B1 VACUUM r
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Backwards scan may break this whole concept; are you sure you've thought
it through?
I think so. The patch doesn't change th
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point remains, however. A page won't get deleted while a scan
> might still be interested in it, because deleted pages are not
> immediately recycled (except on vacuum full), and the left and right
> sibling pointers stay intact until no trans
--- Begin Message ---
sorry for sending the old version in the previous mail . Here I attach
the recent version of the patch file.
Dhanaraj M wrote:
I saw the following in the TODO list.
clients-psql
1. Have psql show current values for a sequence
Hence, this patch displays the
Dhanaraj M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sorry for sending the old version in the previous mail . Here I attach
> the recent version of the patch file.
Surely this problem does not require adding any server-side code.
Something like "select last_value from " would be more appropriate;
and it'd ha
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki, were you planning to make a round of revisions in the patch,
or is this as far as you wanted to take it?
Here's an updated patch. It's the same as the original, but merged with
the changes to the vacuum_cleanup API you committed, and some comment an
Tom Lane wrote:
Dhanaraj M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
sorry for sending the old version in the previous mail . Here I attach
the recent version of the patch file.
--
Surely this problem does not require adding
16 matches
Mail list logo
