Re: enhance the efficiency of migrating particularly large tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: enhance the efficiency of migrating particularly large tables
Date: 2024-04-08 23:02:58
Message-ID: 3573163.1712617378@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Unsure if such a feature is worthwhile. I think maybe not for just
> min(ctid)/max(ctid). However, there could be other reasons, such as
> the transform OR to UNION stuff that Tom worked on a few years ago.
> That needed to eliminate duplicate rows that matched both OR branches
> and that was done using ctid.

I'm kind of allergic to adding features that fundamentally depend on
ctid, seeing that there's so much activity around non-heap table AMs
that may not have any such concept, or may have a row ID that looks
totally different. (That's one reason why I stopped working on that
OR-to-UNION patch.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2024-04-08 23:16:02 Re: post-freeze damage control
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-08 22:58:07 Re: post-freeze damage control