From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze |
Date: | 2013-12-20 12:47:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYw69a_qmXH4mjyC7-+MrHzsfiTdgcYjVp-i0146EnSnA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Maybe what we should do is add a function something like
>> pg_tuple_header(tableoid, ctid) that returns a record, maybe something
>> like (rawxmin xid, rawxmax xid, rawcid cid, infomask int, infomask2
>> int, hoff int). Or perhaps some slightly more cooked version of that
>> information. And then delete the xmin, xmax, cmin, and cmax system
>> columns. That'd save significantly on pg_attribute entries while, at
>> the same time, actually providing more information than we do today.
>
> I was wondering whether we couldn't just pass pg_tuple_header() a whole
> row, instead of having the user manually pass in reloid and ctid. I
> think that should actually work in the interesting scenarios.
I wondered that, too, but it's not well-defined for all tuples. What
happens if you pass in constructed tuple rather than an on-disk tuple?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-20 12:51:52 | Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-20 12:22:07 | Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze |