Re: [HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Gregory Stark
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Another reason is that it avoids the whole problem of updating multiple >> pages atomically, without deadlocks. > > > Thanks Heikki. I am still not getting what you said. In the case of HOT, > you need to update the top pointer to point

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: Thanks Heikki. I am still not getting what you said. In the case of HOT, you need to update the top pointer to point to some other tuple in some other page. That's one update. what's the other one? say currently the top of heap chain points to (2,3) . Imagine we

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:27:27PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > say currently the top of heap chain points to (2,3) . Imagine we are making > the HOT chain through the pages. there might be a situation it should start > pointing to (4,5) after the tuple at (2,3) gets ready to be Vacuum

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/2/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > I understand that if you have to Vacuum a tuple, it has to satisfy the > > necessary snapshot requirements. i will never be able to reduce the > chain to > > just one, because the there is always a in

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: I understand that if you have to Vacuum a tuple, it has to satisfy the necessary snapshot requirements. i will never be able to reduce the chain to just one, because the there is always a indirection at the top of HOT. I understood this. My question was is it the

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/2/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:12:37PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > I am especially interested in the case of continuing the HOT chain > across > > pages. When we are actually reclaiming space, we should check the > snapsh

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:12:37PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > I am especially interested in the case of continuing the HOT chain across > pages. When we are actually reclaiming space, we should check the snapshot > and reclaim it. If it is HOT updated, we will leave the top most tupl

[HACKERS] Clarification about HOT

2007-11-02 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
I went through the README on HOT. That was really a nice and cool feature. Hats off to the person who thought about it. I have a couple of doubts about it. a) In the README, there is a statement like this. In principle we could continue a HOT chain across pages, but this would destroy the desired