Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-11-09 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
(cleaning up my inbox, and bumped into this..) On 22.04.2010 12:31, Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 12:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:56 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: If none of the removed heap tuples were present anymore, we curr

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-11-09 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:34 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > (cleaning up my inbox, and bumped into this..) > > On 22.04.2010 12:31, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 12:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:56 +0300, Heikki Linnaka

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 12:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:56 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >> If none of the removed heap tuples were present anymore, we currently > >> return InvalidTransactionId, which kills/waits out all read

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:56 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> If none of the removed heap tuples were present anymore, we currently >> return InvalidTransactionId, which kills/waits out all read-only >> queries. But if none of the tuples were present anymore, t

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:56 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > If none of the removed heap tuples were present anymore, we currently > return InvalidTransactionId, which kills/waits out all read-only > queries. But if none of the tuples were present anymore, the read-only > que

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:28 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 10:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: btree_redo: > /* >* Note that if all heap tuples were LP_DEAD then we will be >* returning InvalidTrans

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:28 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 10:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> btree_redo: > >>> /* > >>>* Note that if all heap tuples were LP_DEAD then we will be > >>>* returning InvalidTransactionId here. This se

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 10:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> btree_redo: >>> /* >>> * Note that if all heap tuples were LP_DEAD then we will be >>> * returning InvalidTransactionId here. This seems very unlikely >>> * in practice. >>> */ >> If none of

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 10:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > btree_redo: > > case XLOG_BTREE_DELETE: > > > > /* > > * Btree delete records can conflict with standby queries. You > > * might think that vacuum records would conflict as well, but > >

[HACKERS] Hot Standby b-tree delete records review

2010-04-22 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
btree_redo: > case XLOG_BTREE_DELETE: > > /* >* Btree delete records can conflict with standby queries. You >* might think that vacuum records would conflict as well, but >* we've handled that already. XLOG_HEAP2_CLEANUP_INFO reco