Re: [DOCS] HOT - correct claim about indexes not referencing old line pointers

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] HOT - correct claim about indexes not referencing old line pointers
Date: 2023-10-04 13:42:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYGYZZzpB6BkEQS+XJNNpXkcAhy3_7WopRN8-aUJTZ71w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:36 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Are you thinking we should simply elide the fact that there is pruning
> that happens outside of HOT? Or add that information onto the HOT
> page, even though it doesn't directly fit?

I think we should elide it. Maybe with a much larger rewrite there
would be a good place to include that information, but with the
current structure, the page is about why HOT is good, and talking
about pruning that can happen apart from HOT doesn't advance that
message.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-10-04 14:17:28 Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2023-10-04 13:39:08 Re: Document efficient self-joins / UPDATE LIMIT techniques.