From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Disabling Heap-Only Tuples |
Date: | 2023-08-28 12:20:17 |
Message-ID: | c6b3c025331398aaa4a175ae5733ecff8d742278.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2023-08-24 at 18:23 +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 15:13, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023, 13:58 Laurenz Albe, <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > > I agree that the name "max_local_update" could be improved.
> > > Perhaps "avoid_hot_above_size_mb".
> >
> > Or "hot_table_size_threshold" or "hot_update_limit"?
>
> Although I like these names, it doesn't quite cover the use of the
> parameter for me, as updated tuples prefer to be inserted on the same
> page as the old tuple regardless of whether HOT applies.
>
> How about 'local_update_limit'?
I agree with your concern. I cannot think of a better name than yours.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-08-28 12:31:19 | Re: abi-compliance-checker |
Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-08-28 12:09:37 | Re: Return value of pg_promote() |