From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HOT patch - version 14 |
Date: | 2007-08-31 17:46:47 |
Message-ID: | 20070831174646.GC38801@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 12:53:51PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact, now that I think about it there is no other
> > fundamental reason to not support HOT on system tables. So we
> > can very well do what you are suggesting.
> >
> >
>
> On second thought, I wonder if there is really much to gain by
> supporting HOT on system tables and whether it would justify all
> the complexity. Initially I thought about CatalogUpdateIndexes to
> which we need to teach HOT. Later I also got worried about
> building the HOT attribute lists for system tables and handling
> all the corner cases for bootstrapping and catalog REINDEX.
> It might turn out to be straight forward, but I am not able to
> establish that with my limited knowledge in the area.
>
> I would still vote for disabling HOT on catalogs unless you see
> strong value in it.
What about ANALYZE? Doesn't that do a lot of updates?
BTW, I'm 100% in favor of pushing system catalog HOT until later; it's
be silly to risk not getting hot in 8.3 because of catalog HOT.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-31 17:58:36 | Re: enum types and binary queries |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-31 17:41:47 | Re: enum types and binary queries |