| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring (was: transformExpr() refactor) |
| Date: | 2005-01-18 16:17:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20050118161717.GD13418@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:08:01PM +0100, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:15:57 +1100, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >900 line functions are almost
> >universally bad
>
> Amen. So you might be interested in reviewing
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-06/msg00398.php ;-)
Hmm. I think this is a good idea on principle, but what happens in case
a previous vacuum was interrupted? Is there a possibility that tuples
belonging to that vacuum are still marked MOVED_OFF but are not in
vacpage->offsets, for example?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"La fuerza no está en los medios físicos
sino que reside en una voluntad indomable" (Gandhi)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2005-01-18 20:45:50 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2005-01-18 15:08:01 | Refactoring (was: transformExpr() refactor) |