Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
Cc: Chris <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
Date: 2000-02-03 17:32:39
Message-ID: 28437.949599159@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net> writes:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maintaining an accurate count of descendants (or indexes for that
>> matter) would be expensive; in particular, it'd create severe
>> concurrency problems.

> What about fixing these things on VACUUM then?

Could probably do that ... not sure if it's worth the trouble ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Bourdon 2000-02-03 17:32:55
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-02-03 16:52:58 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Hollomon 2000-02-03 17:47:18 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-02-03 17:30:22 Re: [HACKERS] Parser/planner and column aliases

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-02-03 17:46:29 Re: [SQL] Question about SELECT and ORDER BY
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-02-03 16:52:58 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL