On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié nov 23 12:15:55 -0300 2011:
>>> > And it effects shared catalogs only, which are all low traffic anyway.
>>> I think "low traffic" is the key point. I understand that you're not
>>> changing the VACUUM behavior, but you are making heap_page_prune_opt()
>>> not do anything when a shared catalog is involved. That would be
>>> unacceptable if we expected shared catalogs to be updated frequently,
>>> either now or in the future, but I guess we don't expect that.
>> Maybe not pg_database or pg_tablespace and such, but I'm not so sure
>> about pg_shdepend. (Do we record pg_shdepend entries for temp tables?)
> Normal catalog access does not use HOT and never has.
I don't understand that. We started with the simplified assumption
that HOT can skip catalog tables, but later that was one of the
pre-conditions Tom spelled out to accept HOT patch because his view
was if this does not work for system tables, it probably does not work
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2011-11-23 17:58:25|
|Subject: Re: Not HOT enough|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-11-23 17:01:40|
|Subject: Re: Not HOT enough |