Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04.12.2010 09:14, jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
> > There has been a lot discussion about index-only scans and how to make the
> > visibillity map crash safe. Then followed by a good discussion about hint
> > bits.
> >
> > What seems to be the main concern is the added wal
>> My imagination is probably not as good, but if you at time A wallog the
>> complete map and at A+1 you update a tuple so the visibility bit is cleared
>> but the map bit change does not happen due to a crash. Then at wal replay
>> time you restore the map from time A and if the tuple change a
On 04.12.2010 10:22, jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
Den 4 Dec 2010 kl. 08:48 skrev Heikki
Linnakangas:
If you WAL-log the visibility map changes after-the-fact, it doesn't solve the
race condition we're struggling with: the visibility map change might hit the
disk before the PD_ALL_VISIBLE to the hea
Den 4 Dec 2010 kl. 08:48 skrev Heikki Linnakangas
:
> On 04.12.2010 09:14, jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
>> There has been a lot discussion about index-only scans and how to make the
>> visibillity map crash safe. Then followed by a good discussion about hint
>> bits.
>>
>> What seems to be the main
On 04.12.2010 09:14, jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
There has been a lot discussion about index-only scans and how to make the
visibillity map crash safe. Then followed by a good discussion about hint bits.
What seems to be the main concern is the added wal volume and it makes me
wonder if there is a
There has been a lot discussion about index-only scans and how to make the
visibillity map crash safe. Then followed by a good discussion about hint bits.
What seems to be the main concern is the added wal volume and it makes me
wonder if there is a way in-between that looks more like hint bits.
