On 11/29/2013 06:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Note that Robert's proposed solution is no solution, because it just
> puts you right back in the bind of needing guaranteed non-lossy
> storage of a TID set that might be too big to fit in memory.
The solution should work if we could guarantee that a TIDBitmap based on
the fast update pending list always will fit in the memory. That does
not sound like a good assumption to me.
--
Andreas Karlsson