On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 1/3/13 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It's true, as we've often
>> said here, that leveraging the OS facilities means that we get the
>> benefit of improving OS facilities "for free" - but it also means that
>> we never exceed what the OS facilities are able to provide.
> And that should be the deciding factor, shouldn't it? Clearly, the OS
> timestamps do not satisfy the requirements of tracking database object
> creation times.
Yes, I think so.
But I am not entirely sold on tracking the creation time of every SQL
object. It might be all right, but what about catalog bloat?
I am on board for databases, and for tables, at any rate.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kohei KaiGai||Date: 2013-01-08 13:58:42|
|Subject: Re: recent ALTER whatever .. SET SCHEMA refactoring|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2013-01-08 13:20:42|
|Subject: Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c|