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

Re: HOT patch - version 14

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HOT patch - version 14
Date: 2007-08-31 17:46:47
Message-ID: 20070831174646.GC38801@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 12:53:51PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact, now that I think about it there is no other
> > fundamental reason to not support HOT on system tables. So we
> > can very well do what you are suggesting.
> >
> >
> 
> On second thought, I wonder if there is really much to gain by
> supporting HOT on system tables and whether it would justify all
> the complexity. Initially I thought about CatalogUpdateIndexes to
> which we need to teach HOT. Later I also got worried about
> building the HOT attribute lists for system tables and handling
> all the corner cases for bootstrapping and catalog REINDEX.
> It might turn out to be straight forward, but I am not able to
> establish that with my limited knowledge in the area.
> 
> I would still vote for disabling HOT on catalogs unless you see
> strong value in it.

What about ANALYZE? Doesn't that do a lot of updates?

BTW, I'm 100% in favor of pushing system catalog HOT until later; it's
be silly to risk not getting hot in 8.3 because of catalog HOT.
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Decibel!Date: 2007-08-31 17:58:36
Subject: Re: enum types and binary queries
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-08-31 17:41:47
Subject: Re: enum types and binary queries

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