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.
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 |
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 |