Re: On-disk Tuple Size

From: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>
To: "Curt Sampson" <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "jtp" <john(at)akadine(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: On-disk Tuple Size
Date: 2002-04-21 13:28:08
Message-ID: 05db01c1e938$6085b3e0$8001a8c0@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> Having per-transaction command IDs might allow us to reduce the
range of
> the t_cmin and t_cmax fields. Unfortunately, probably by not all
that
> much, since one doesn't want to limit the number of commands within
a
> single transaction to something as silly as 65536.

If you can figure out how to make that roll over sure, but thats a
very small number.

Consider users who do most of their stuff via functions (one
transaction). Now consider the function that builds reports, stats,
etc. for some department. It's likley these work on a per account
basis.

We have a function making invoices that would wrap around that atleast
10x.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-21 14:39:04 Re: On-disk Tuple Size
Previous Message Curt Sampson 2002-04-21 07:46:22 Re: On-disk Tuple Size

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sander Steffann 2002-04-21 14:05:21 Re: Schema (namespace) privilege details
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2002-04-21 09:28:32 Re: Documentation on page files