From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Catalog/Metadata consistency during changeset extraction from wal |
Date: | 2012-06-26 18:11:54 |
Message-ID: | 20120626181154.GB19560@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 01:50:54PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure were going to get all that into 9.3.
>
> Sure, that was more related to why I was questioning how much these
> use cases even *could* integrate -- whether it even paid to
> *consider* these use cases at this point. Responses from Robert and
> you have pretty much convinced me that I was being overly
> pessimistic on that.
>
> One fine point regarding before and after images -- if a value
> doesn't change in an UPDATE, there's no reason to include it in both
> the BEFORE and AFTER tuple images, as long as we have the null
> column bitmaps -- or some other way of distinguishing unchanged from
> NULL. (This could be especially important when the unchanged column
> was a 50 MB bytea.)
How about two bitmaps: one telling which columns are actually there,
the other with NULLs?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-06-26 18:46:06 | Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2012-06-26 17:56:15 | Re: proof concept - access to session variables on client side |