Re: Disabling Heap-Only Tuples

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()