"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As stated in later email, I think we should focus on the xid idea > because it is more flexible.
Sorry if I was unclear. I agree, my comment and questions are all predicated on the assumption that we would go with xids. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Gregory Stark wrote: >> >> "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > We also add a boolean to pg_class to indicate no new HOT chains should be >> > created and set that to false once the new index is created. >> >> Since we have all the index info in the relcache we could just skim through >> all the indexes when we build the relcache and decide then whether we're >> allowed to do HOT updates. That avoids problems if we crash while HOT updates >> are disabled. >> >> I think we need to think harder about exactly what test we would perform >> against this xid to determine the two relevant tests, >> >> a) whether to prohibit HOT updates (because the index is "too new") >> >> b) whether to ignore HOT update chains when we use the index (because it's >> "too new" and any HOT update chains predate it). >> >> I fear it may imply that we have to keep performing cold updates until the >> first vacuum after the xid expires. >> >> -- >> Gregory Stark >> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > -- > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
