Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Another idea for dealing with cmin/cmax

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another idea for dealing with cmin/cmax
Date: 2006-09-28 16:13:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> In addition to/instead of abstracting cmin/cmax to a phantom ID, what
> about allowing for two versions of the tuple header, one with cid info
> and one without? That would allow for cid info to be stripped out when
> pages were written to disk.

How exactly would that help? You can't just strip out cid info when 
writing to disk, if you don't want to lose the information.

And it's certainly a lot more complicated than the phantom id thing.

  Heikki Linnakangas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2006-09-28 16:16:09
Subject: Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-09-28 16:08:36
Subject: Another idea for dealing with cmin/cmax

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group