| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nullability patch take 2 |
| Date: | 2002-04-01 04:41:33 |
| Message-ID: | 28071.1017636093@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Updated to match Tom's new semantics. passes my own regression tests plus
> all existing ones...
Checked and applied. I made one nontrivial change --- for anything on
which there's a syscache, it's a lot easier (and faster) to use
SearchSysCacheCopy to get a tuple to update than it is to do a heapscan.
The syscache will either have the tuple already, or will get it with an
indexscan --- either way wins over a heapscan when the catalog is at
all large.
(One of the things on my to-do list is to get rid of unnecessary
heapscans on system tables; there are still a few of 'em in code
paths that are used enough to be worth worrying about.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-01 05:21:22 | Re: Nullability patch take 2 |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-03-31 21:38:23 | pg_depend support |