Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing

From: Alvyhank <alvyhank(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing
Date: 2015-08-10 07:04:19
Message-ID: 1439190259800-5861534.post@n5.nabble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Having a freeze map would be wholly unnecessary if we don't ever need to
freeze whole tables again. Freezing would still be needed on individual
blocks where an old row has been updated or deleted; a freeze map would not
help there either.

So there is no conflict, but options 2) and 3) are completely redundant if
we go for 5). After investigation, I now think 5) is achievable in 9.6, but
if I am wrong for whatever reason, we have 2) as a backstop for more go to h
ttp://www.pillenpalast.com/ <http://www.pillenpalast.com/>

-----
Kamagra http://www.pillenpalast.com/
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Summary-of-plans-to-avoid-the-annoyance-of-Freezing-tp5861530p5861534.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-08-10 07:11:17 Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2015-08-10 06:26:29 Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing