From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility |
Date: | 2016-06-27 21:51:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZvMR5yC1izmVM4V+Qqpo6AcHod0wer9=k4nsCu08Dvdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs:
>>> pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* taking in input a block
>>> number are SRFs, and return a set of records. The documentation is
>>> just listing them with "returns record". A patch is attached.
>>
>> And that: s/PD_ALL_VISIBILE/PD_ALL_VISIBLE.
>
> And would it actually make sense to have pg_check_frozen(IN regclass,
> IN blkno) to target only a certain page? Same for pg_check_visible. It
> would take a long time to run those functions on large tables as they
> scan all the pages of a relation at once..
Under what circumstances would you wish to check only one page of a relation?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-06-27 21:56:43 | Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-27 21:49:53 | Re: A couple of cosmetic changes around shared memory code |