Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Patch along these lines attached.
Frankly, I find this quite ugly, and much prefer the general approach of
your previous patch in <BANLkTim433vF5HWjbJ0FSWm_-xA8DDaGNg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>.
However, I don't like where you put the execution-time test there. I'd
put it in ExecOpenScanRelation instead, so that it covers both seqscan
and indexscan accesses.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2011-06-07 15:56:45|
|Subject: Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now,
with WIP patch|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-06-07 15:36:29|
|Subject: Re: WALInsertLock tuning|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2011-06-07 17:42:46|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node|
|Previous:||From: Daniel Cristian Cruz||Date: 2011-06-07 15:43:37|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6050: Dump and restore of view after a schema change:
can't restore the view|