From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "Alessio Bragadini" <alessio(at)albourne(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: postgres TODO |
Date: | 2000-07-12 03:05:10 |
Message-ID: | 13387.963371110@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I've forgotten to propose that INSERT returns TID together
> with OID before 7.0. This has been in my mind since
> I planned to implement Tid scan. Different from OID
> ,TID has its specific (fast) access method now.
Couple of thoughts here ---
* OID is (nominally) unique across tables. TID is not. This is a
serious point in the presence of inheritance. I'd like to see the
return be table OID plus TID if we are going to rely on TID.
* TID identification of a row does not survive VACUUM, does it?
So you'd have to assume a vacuum didn't happen in between. Seems a
little risky. Vadim's overwriting smgr would make this issue a lot
worse. Might be OK in certain application contexts, but I wouldn't
want to encourage people to use it without thinking.
* I don't see any way to add TID (or table OID) to the default return
data without changing the fe/be protocol and breaking a lot of existing
client code.
Philip's INSERT ... RETURNING idea could support returning TID and
table OID as a special case, and it has the saving grace that it
won't affect apps that don't use it...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-07-12 03:10:09 | RE: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-12 02:49:11 | Re: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples |