From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [WIP] The relminxid addition, try 3 |
Date: | 2006-05-08 19:46:54 |
Message-ID: | 20060508194654.GI3351@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Ah, there's another reason, and it's that I'm rewriting the tuple in
> > place, not calling heap_update.
>
> Is that really a good idea, as compared to using heap_update?
Not sure -- we would leave dead tuples after the VACUUM is finished if
we used heap_update, no? ISTM it's undesirable.
> (Now, if you're combining this with the very grotty relpages/reltuples
> update code, then I'm all for making that xlog properly --- we've gotten
> away without it so far but it really should xlog the change.)
I hadn't done that, but I'll see what I can do. Notice however that I'm
doing this in both pg_class _and_ pg_database.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-08 19:54:59 | Re: [WIP] The relminxid addition, try 3 |
Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-05-08 19:09:11 | Re: Page at a time index scan |