From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: HOT updates & REDIRECT line pointers |
Date: | 2012-03-22 01:28:22 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoarcqsByWqzWExwGJ59agE0ttRDe-bcxV3DqOpjZUL5Kw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any
>> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of
>> standard_conforming_strings,
>
> Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute
> (or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest
> exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE.
Oh, hmm, interesting. I had been thinking that you were talking about
a case where *user code* was relying on the semantics of the TID,
which has always struck me as an implementation detail that users
probably shouldn't get too attached to. But now I see that you're
talking about something much more basic - the fundamental
implementation of UPDATE and DELETE relies on the TID not changing
under them. That pretty much kills this idea dead in the water.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-03-22 01:32:35 | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-22 01:22:56 | Re: HOT updates & REDIRECT line pointers |