On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Pavan Deolasee
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm. Yeah, I do not have guts to prove that either. I'll probably write up a
>>> comment for your consideration to explai
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
>> Hmm. Yeah, I do not have guts to prove that either. I'll probably write up a
>> comment for your consideration to explain why we don't trust PD_ALL_VISIBLE
>> in Hot standby for seq s
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> Hmm. Yeah, I do not have guts to prove that either. I'll probably write up a
> comment for your consideration to explain why we don't trust PD_ALL_VISIBLE
> in Hot standby for seq scans, but still trust VM for index-only scans.
Sure.
> Ano
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > Youre right, it currently seems to be possible, there's no LSN interlock
> > prohibiting this as far as I can see.
>
> Yeah, there certainly isn't that. Now you could perhaps make an
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I wonder if we could solve that by having an in-memory-only LSN that
> only interlocks the hint bit writes, but doesn't cause full page
> writes...
It's not really a hint bit, because if it fails to get set when the
visibility map bit gets s
On 2012-12-04 09:33:28 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Youre right, it currently seems to be possible, there's no LSN interlock
> > prohibiting this as far as I can see.
>
> Yeah, there certainly isn't that. Now you could perhaps make an
> argu
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Youre right, it currently seems to be possible, there's no LSN interlock
> prohibiting this as far as I can see.
Yeah, there certainly isn't that. Now you could perhaps make an
argument that no operation that can propagate a set bit from mas
On 2012-12-04 08:38:48 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking at the following code in heapam.c:
> >
> > 261 /*
> > 262 * If the all-visible flag indicates that all tuples on the page
> > are
> > 263 * visible to
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> I was looking at the following code in heapam.c:
>
> 261 /*
> 262 * If the all-visible flag indicates that all tuples on the page
> are
> 263 * visible to everyone, we can skip the per-tuple visibility tests.
> But
> 264
On 2012-12-04 18:38:11 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> I was looking at the following code in heapam.c:
>
> 261 /*
> 262 * If the all-visible flag indicates that all tuples on the page
> are
> 263 * visible to everyone, we can skip the per-tuple visibility
> tests. But
> 264 *
I was looking at the following code in heapam.c:
261 /*
262 * If the all-visible flag indicates that all tuples on the page
are
263 * visible to everyone, we can skip the per-tuple visibility
tests. But
264 * not in hot standby mode. A tuple that's already visible to all
26
11 matches
Mail list logo
