Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Having said that I now realise a few things I didn't before:
> * Approach (2) effects the core of Postgres, even if you don't use Hot
> * I've had to remove 7 sanity checks to get the first few VACUUMs
> working. ISTM that removing various basic checks in the code is not a
> good thing.
> * There are are more special cases than I realised at first: temp,
> shared, with-toast, nailed, shared-and-nailed, pg_class, normal system.
Quite honestly, these statements and the attached patch (which doesn't
even begin to touch the central issue, but does indeed break a lot of
things) demonstrate that *you* are not the guy to implement what was
being discussed. It needs to be done by someone who understands the
core caching code, which apparently you haven't studied in any detail.
I have a feeling that I should go do this...
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-01-31 19:48:19|
|Subject: Re: development setup and libdir|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-01-31 19:42:55|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for
btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to|