From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized |
Date: | 2003-10-05 13:36:40 |
Message-ID: | 200310051336.h95Daee20397@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
> >> problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
> >> the performance issues.
>
> > What are the atomicity problems of adding a create/expire xid to the
> > index tuples?
>
> You can't update a tuple's status in just one place ... you have to
> update the copies in the indexes too.
But we don't update the tuple status for a commit, we just mark the xid
as committed. We do have lazy status bits that prevent later lookups in
pg_clog, but we have those in the index already also.
What am I missing?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2003-10-05 13:41:03 | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-05 13:34:54 | Re: Open 7.4 items |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-10-05 14:34:31 | Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance? |
Previous Message | Matt Clark | 2003-10-05 11:14:24 | Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance? |