Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-09-03 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-31 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-31 Thread Decibel!
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-31 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-31 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Gregory Stark
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Gregory Stark
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
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. How could we get ShareLock

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Gregory Stark
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you make the change suggested above, I think you don't need to do things differently in C.I.C. It seems to me if you wait out transactions as you come across them you could end up waiting a whole lot longer than the way it works now where it waits

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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.

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-30 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-20 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Pavan Deolasee wrote: Please see the version 14 of HOT patch attached. I have also attached a differential patch from the last version posted. This now includes support for partial and expression indexes. As per the discussion, we collect all the index columns appearing in the partial index

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] HOT patch - version 14

2007-08-20 Thread Pavan Deolasee
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.