"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 18:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I wonder whether there are any other places that are silently assuming
>>> that heapscans start from page zero ...
>> I considered that question when implementing sync scans, but I could not
>> think of any specific areas of the code that would likely be affected.
> I went through all of the heap_beginscan calls in the code last night.
> pgstattuple was broken but AFAICS none of the other callers care about
> the visitation order. I wonder though about third-party add-ons :-(
Perhaps we ought to have made heap_beginscan guarantee an ordered scan and
made synch scans be explicitly requested. That would have touched a lot of
lines but been more conservative. I'm not sure it's worth going back on it now
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-01-15 03:00:38|
|Subject: Re: to_char incompatibility|
|Previous:||From: Stephen Denne||Date: 2008-01-15 02:40:56|
|Subject: 8.3RC1 on windows missing descriptive Event handle names|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2008-01-15 03:03:42|
|Subject: Re: Satisfactory Query Time|
|Previous:||From: Ken Winter||Date: 2008-01-15 01:11:24|
|Subject: Re: What pg_restore does to a non-empty target database |