Re: Re: Rethinking hint bits WAS: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Rethinking hint bits WAS: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal
Date: 2010-11-14 23:11:19
Message-ID: 4CE06C97.8000407@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/14/2010 05:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh is ignoring the proposal that is on the table and seems actually
> workable, which is to consult the visibility map during index-only
> scans. For mostly-static tables this would save trips to the heap for
> very little extra I/O. The hard part is to make the VM reliable, but
> that is not obviously harder than making separately-stored hint bits
> reliable.

I thought we had agreement in the past that this was the way we should
proceed.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2010-11-14 23:15:34 Re: wCTE behaviour
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-14 23:10:49 Re: Count backend self-sync calls