From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
Date: | 2012-03-16 01:52:12 |
Message-ID: | 20120316015212.GA6150@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:37:36PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> You still have HEAP_XMAX_{INVALID,COMMITTED} to reduce the pressure on mxid
> >>> lookups, so I think something more sophisticated is needed to exercise that
> >>> cost. ?Not sure what.
> >>
> >> I don't think HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED is much help, because committed !=
> >> all-visible.
> >
> > So because committed does not equal all visible there will be
> > additional lookups on mxids? That's complete rubbish.
>
> Noah seemed to be implying that once the updating transaction
> committed, HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED would get set and save the mxid lookup.
> But I think that's not true, because anyone who looks at the tuple
> afterward will still need to know the exact xmax, to test it against
> their snapshot.
Yeah, my comment above was wrong. I agree that we'll need to retrieve the
mxid members during every MVCC scan until we either mark the page all-visible
or have occasion to simplify the mxid xmax to the updater xid.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-03-16 01:54:15 | Re: Keystone auth in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-16 01:38:20 | Re: Keystone auth in PostgreSQL |