On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Patch along these lines attached.
> Frankly, I find this quite ugly, and much prefer the general approach of
> your previous patch in <BANLkTim433vF5HWjbJ0FSWm_-xA8DDaGNg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>.
> However, I don't like where you put the execution-time test there. I'd
> put it in ExecOpenScanRelation instead, so that it covers both seqscan
> and indexscan accesses.
Ah, OK. I was wondering if there was a better place. I'll do it that
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2011-06-07 18:06:32|
|Subject: Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now,
with WIP patch|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-06-07 18:00:10|
|Subject: Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Anton Dedov||Date: 2011-06-07 18:15:27|
|Subject: Re: ON DELETE CASCADE with multiple paths in PostgreSQL 9.x |
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2011-06-07 17:42:46|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node|