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

Re: Another idea for dealing with cmin/cmax

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another idea for dealing with cmin/cmax
Date: 2006-09-28 16:13:11
Message-ID: 451BF497.9080505@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> In addition to/instead of abstracting cmin/cmax to a phantom ID, what
> about allowing for two versions of the tuple header, one with cid info
> and one without? That would allow for cid info to be stripped out when
> pages were written to disk.
>   

How exactly would that help? You can't just strip out cid info when 
writing to disk, if you don't want to lose the information.

And it's certainly a lot more complicated than the phantom id thing.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2006-09-28 16:16:09
Subject: Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-09-28 16:08:36
Subject: Another idea for dealing with cmin/cmax

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