Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility
Date: 2016-06-23 04:53:33
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRWQR=PBQErVR9g8apP-OR1pK7DScbJZD1VWm0zMoW+9g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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..
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-06-23 06:42:57 Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-06-23 04:46:14 Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility