From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze |
Date: | 2013-12-20 20:05:24 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZHxHkj=GAuW_Jqop2JCMSv+0b96MzyEJ5UEVKngnqVGw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> > I assume without checking that passing reloid/ctid would allow this to
>> > work for tuples in a RETURNING clause; and if we ever have an OLD
>> > reference for the RETURNING clause of an UPDATE, that it would work
>> > there, too, showing the post-update status of the updated tuple.
>>
>> I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that
>> reloid/ctid is a better approach, a worse approach, or just a
>> different approach?
>
> That probably wasn't worded very well. I am just saying that whatever
> approach we end up with, it would be nice that it worked somehow with
> RETURNING clauses.
Hmm. It's not evident to me why that particular case would be any
different than anything else, but that might be my ignorance showing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-12-20 20:07:18 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-20 20:04:25 | Re: shared memory message queues |