| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "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 21:41:52 |
| Message-ID: | 873ai5c0kf.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"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...
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-11-05 22:07:39 | Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-11-05 21:05:53 | Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |