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
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 |