Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and
Date: 2006-12-27 14:28:25
Message-ID: 200612271428.kBRESPQ16911@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> > The current terminology of live and dead is already used in many places in the 
> > documentation and in userspace; mostly around the need for maintainance of 
> > dead tuples within tables, reindex cleaning up dead pages, and even in the 
> > vacuum commands output (n dead tuples cannot be removed yet). Given this 
> > patch came from userland, istm people are comfortable enough with this 
> > terminology there is no need to change it. 
> 
> +1

OK.  I will adjust any places that still use expired, and put the patch
into the queue.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-27 15:10:47
Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and
Previous:From: markDate: 2006-12-27 13:25:39
Subject: Re: Bitmap index thoughts

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-27 15:10:47
Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and
Previous:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2006-12-27 13:05:40
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index implementation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group