| From: | "mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it" <mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: About tapes |
| Date: | 2010-06-21 19:44:20 |
| Message-ID: | BLU0-SMTP4798AEBCE8C8E7D3DCCAABE6C30@phx.gbl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, you are right: it is just more complicated.
In fact, I did not pretend to demonstrate that it was easier or faster
using one file per tape.
As you can remember, I just did not understand why you said it was
*impossible* to recycle space in that case.
So, the conclusion is: you can do recycle space when using one file per
tape, but it is just more complicated than current design, isn't it?
PD: are we sure it is more complicated?
Thanks.
Manolo.
Il 21/06/2010 21:27, Tom Lane ha scritto:
>
> And once you've done that, what benefit have you got over the current
> design? None that I can see. It's only more complicated.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-21 20:29:53 | what exactly is a PlaceHolderVar? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-21 19:27:06 | Re: About tapes |