From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | wangshuo(at)highgo(dot)com(dot)cn, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Is it necessary to rewrite table while increasing the scale of datatype numeric? |
Date: | 2013-09-06 03:47:04 |
Message-ID: | 20130906034704.GA161858@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:41:25AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> In order to avoid the rewrite, the code would have to be changed to
> look up the column definition and if it specifies the scale, then
> ignore the per-row n_header, and look at the n_header only if the
> column is NUMERIC with no precision or scale. That should
> conceptually be possible, but I don't know how hard it would be to
> implement--it sounds pretty invasive to me. Then if the column was
> altered from NUMERIC with scale to be a plain NUMERIC, it would have
> to rewrite the table to enforce the row-wise scale to match the old
> column-wise scale. Where as now that alter doesn't need a re-write.
> I don't know if this would be an overall gain or not.
Invasive indeed. The type-supplementary data would need to reach essentially
everywhere we now convey a type OID. Compare the invasiveness of adding
collation support. However, this is not the first time it would have been
useful. We currently store a type OID in every array and composite datum.
That's wasteful and would be unnecessary if we reliably marshalled similar
information to all the code needing it. Given a few more use cases, the
effort would perhaps start to look credible relative to the benefits.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-09-06 04:02:27 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-09-06 02:00:43 | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |