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.
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 |