Re: logical changeset generation v4

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v4
Date: 2013-01-21 02:45:11
Message-ID: CA+TgmoafOx=heR79_R7xiX7Lcx2cW7SUVftDgdTM5drJc+eSgA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Makes sense?

Yes. The catalog timetravel stuff still gives me heartburn. The idea
of treating system catalogs in a special way has never sat well with
me and still doesn't - not that I am sure what I'd like better. The
complexity of the whole system is also somewhat daunting.

But my question with relation to this specific patch was mostly
whether setting the table OID everywhere was worth worrying about from
a performance standpoint, or whether any of the other adjustments this
patch makes could have negative consequences there, since the
Satisfies functions can get very hot on some workloads. It seems like
the consensus is "no, that's not worth worrying about", at least as
far as the table OIDs are concerned.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2013-01-21 02:55:06 Re: patch to add \watch to psql
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-01-21 02:37:32 Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)