Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of mié nov 23 13:14:04 -0300 2011:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié nov 23 12:15:55 -0300 2011:
> >> > And it effects shared catalogs only, which are all low traffic anyway.
> >> I think "low traffic" is the key point. I understand that you're not
> >> changing the VACUUM behavior, but you are making heap_page_prune_opt()
> >> not do anything when a shared catalog is involved. That would be
> >> unacceptable if we expected shared catalogs to be updated frequently,
> >> either now or in the future, but I guess we don't expect that.
> > Maybe not pg_database or pg_tablespace and such, but I'm not so sure
> > about pg_shdepend. (Do we record pg_shdepend entries for temp tables?)
> Normal catalog access does not use HOT and never has.
> If we're saying that isn't enough and we actually depend on the
> occasional user inspecting the catalog then we are already hosed.
Probably not. I have heard of cases of pg_shdepend getting bloated
though, so it'd be nice if it happened.
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-11-23 17:01:40|
|Subject: Re: Not HOT enough |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-11-23 16:36:28|
|Subject: Re: [JDBC] Optimize postgres protocol for fixed size arrays |