From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
Date: | 2013-04-28 15:41:35 |
Message-ID: | 24328.1367163695@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I cannot say that I find that idea attractive; the biggest problem with
>> it being that updating such a state flag will be nontransactional,
>> unless we go to a lot of effort to support rollbacks. ISTM that the
>> scannability property is a perfectly normal relation property and as
>> such *ought* to be in the pg_class row, or at worst some other catalog
>> entry. Why do you think differently?
> Mostly because of the issue with unlogged tables, I suppose. If
> you've got a reasonable idea how to do catalog updates on restart,
> though, I could probably be convinced to yield to that.
Well, it's fairly clear *how* to do it: add some more processing that
occurs after we've completed crash replay. We already have some of
that, eg completion of partial splits in btrees, so it's not that much
of a stretch; it's just a lot of code that's not been written yet.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-28 15:55:07 | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-04-28 12:50:28 | Re: Proposal to add --single-row to psql |