| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |
| Date: | 2008-11-05 22:07:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20081105220739.GC3531@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 09:41:52PM +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> >> Problem is how to move tuple from page to another and keep indexes in sync.
> >> One solution is to perform some think like "update" operation on the tuple.
> >> But you need exclusive lock on the page and pin counter have to be zero. And
> >> question is where it is safe operation.
> >
> > But doesn't this problem go away if you do it in a transaction? You
> > set xmax on the old tuple, write the new tuple, and add index entries
> > just as you would for a normal update.
>
> But that doesn't actually solve the overflow problem on the old page...
Sure it does. You move just enough tuples that you can convert the page
without an overflow.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-11-05 23:00:56 | RAM-only temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-11-05 21:41:52 | Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |