Re: Why do index access methods use LP_DELETE?

From: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why do index access methods use LP_DELETE?
Date: 2005-08-12 06:20:13
Message-ID: 20050812144228.4700.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> > Why do index access methods use LP_DELETE?
>
> My recollection is that I deliberately used LP_DELETE for the
> known-dead-tuple marker so that there couldn't be any confusion with
> the use of LP_USED. AFAIR, LP_USED isn't actually used in indexes,
> so we could do it differently if there were another possible use for
> the flag bit ... have you got one in mind?

Thanks. I understood there is little difference
between non-LP_USED and LP_DELETE for indexes.

I'm thinking to use LP_DELETE for relation tuples for incremental vacuum,
which is discussed in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00518.php
I'll try to mark tuples with LP_DELETE on visibility checking and
recycle the pages by bgwriter.
...However it is still a stage of an idea.

---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-08-12 07:56:48 Re: Determining return type of polymorphic function
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2005-08-12 05:08:29 Re: obtaining row locking information