| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |
| Date: | 2011-10-28 19:30:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob0Gji87mwrqPhNrFF3Z+FB1s5EVPeDAKZTaPk2Vr+GVA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Hmm. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to get rid of the range
>>> checks in BufferIsValid, or better convert them into Asserts. It seems
>>> less than intuitive that BufferIsValid and BufferIsInvalid aren't simple
>>> inverses.
>
>> Seems reasonable. It would break if anyone is using an out-of-range
>> buffer number in lieu of InvalidBuffer, but I doubt that anyone is.
>
> Yeah, I find that unlikely as well. But leaving Asserts in place would
> tell us.
OK. Should I go do that, or are you all over it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2011-10-28 19:33:16 | Re: fstat vs. lseek |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-28 19:27:36 | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |