Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, mkoi-pg@aon.at
Date: 2005-09-07T17:38:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > I'm curious to know how can you store the cmin/cmax pair completely out > of the tuple. It's easy to see how to store a single identifier in each > tuple that would be an index to a structure in local memory. However, > to eliminate both you'd have to keep a list of all tuples you have > created or obsoleted, with the cmin and cmax of each. This seems like > an awful amount of memory. Yeah. I think a reasonable compromise scheme is to try to get down to three fields per tuple: xmin same as now xmax same as now cid/xvac xvac can share storage with the command ID info as long as VACUUM FULL never tries to move a tuple whose originating or deleting transaction is still running ... which is pretty much the same restriction we had before. For the command IDs, I am imagining: if created in current transaction: use cid to store cmin if deleted in current transaction: use cid to store cmax if both created and deleted in current transaction: cid is an index into an in-memory data structure that contains cmin and cmax. "current transaction" would have to have the loose definition that includes any subxact of the current top xact, but still, I think that the case where you need both fields is relatively uncommon. The in-memory data structure would only need to contain an entry for each distinct combination of cmin and cmax used in the current xact, so I think we could assume that it would never get unreasonably large. The entries would be created "on demand" much like we do for multixact ids (I guess you'd want a hash table to map requested cmin/cmax to an existing entry ID quickly). regards, tom lane