Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 16:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 
>> - The assumption that b-tree vacuum records don't need conflict
>> resolution because we did that with the additional cleanup-info record
>> works ATM, but it hinges on the fact that we don't delete any tuples
>> marked as killed while we do the vacuum. That seems like a low-hanging
>> fruit that I'd actually like to do now that I spotted it, but will then
>> need to fix b-tree vacuum records accordingly. 
> 
> You didn't make a change, so I wonder whether you realised no change was
> required or that you still think change is necessary, but have left it
> to me? Not sure.
> 
> I've investigated this but can't see any problem or need for change.

Sorry if I was unclear: it works as it is. But *if* we change the b-tree
vacuum to also delete index tuples marked with LP_DEAD, we have a problem.

> I think its important that we note this assumption though.

Yeah, a comment is in order.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com