Re: HOT patch - version 14

From: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HOT patch - version 14
Date: 2007-08-31 07:23:51
Message-ID: 2e78013d0708310023u448c568bxa1c0c809d6e99910@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

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.

Thanks,
Pavan

--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2007-08-31 12:49:05 Re: enum types and binary queries
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2007-08-31 05:26:34 Re: HOT patch - version 14