| From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-24 08:53:49 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002240053hbe00473yc448e3fd7751d32f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> The fragility there is not an issue in a mostly read-only application,
> but it definitely would be a concern in other cases.
>
While we accept that visibility map is good for read only application, why
can't we make it optional? Atleast if there is a way for a person to drop
the visibility map for a table(if it gets created by default), the
application need not incur the overhead for those tables, when it knows it
is update intensive / with batch jobs.
Again not to deviate from my initial question, can we make a decision
regarding unstable/mutable functions / broken data types ?
Thanks,
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-02-24 09:21:00 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Move documentation of all recovery.conf option to a new chapter. |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-02-24 08:46:33 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |