Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>,
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-03-09T15:44:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> Okay, I can try, but note that currently there is no test related to >> "snapshot too old" for any other indexes. > > Wow, that's surprising. It seems the snapshot_too_old test only > checks that this works for a table that has no indexes. Have you, > anyway, tested it manually? > Yes, I have tested in manually. I think we need to ensure that the modified tuple falls on the same page as old tuple to make the test work. The slight difficulty with the index is to ensure the modified tuple to be inserted into same page as old tuple, this is more true with hash indexes. Also, for heap, I think it relies on hot pruning stuff and for index we need to perform manual vacuum. Basically, if we want we can write a test for index, but not sure if it is worth the pain to write for hash index when the test for btree is not there. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Add a regression test for snapshot too old with hash indexes.
- 42bdaebf1618 10.0 landed
-
hash: Add write-ahead logging support.
- c11453ce0aea 10.0 landed
-
Improve coding in _hash_addovflpage.
- e898437460f5 10.0 cited
-
Remove _hash_wrtbuf() in favor of calling MarkBufferDirty().
- 25216c989384 10.0 cited
-
Improve hash index bucket split behavior.
- 6d46f4783efe 10.0 cited