From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: HOT updates & REDIRECT line pointers |
Date: | 2012-03-22 13:31:57 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKBN_GKoN41nRq_MbNe0ch24Bbcy0H83npyw5XypzSBpQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any
>>> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of
>>> standard_conforming_strings,
>>
>> Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute
>> (or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest
>> exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE.
>
> Oh, hmm, interesting. I had been thinking that you were talking about
> a case where *user code* was relying on the semantics of the TID,
> which has always struck me as an implementation detail that users
> probably shouldn't get too attached to. But now I see that you're
> talking about something much more basic - the fundamental
> implementation of UPDATE and DELETE relies on the TID not changing
> under them. That pretty much kills this idea dead in the water.
Surely it just stops you using that idea 100% of the time. I don't see
why you can't have this co-exist with the current mechanism. So it
doesn't kill it for the common case.
But would the idea deliver much value? Is line pointer bloat a
problem? (I have no idea if it is/is not)
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-03-22 13:35:30 | Re: HOT updates & REDIRECT line pointers |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-22 13:07:05 | Re: checkpoint patches |