| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |
| Date: | 2023-04-14 19:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=8vQaq+dJ40s9FU+wh=dYCf9CsswVpnrL8DybOgxW09g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:47 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I don't think it's outright wrong, but it is very confusing what it relates
> to. For some reason I tried to "attach" the parenthetical to the "otherwise",
> which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. How about:
I suppose that it doesn't matter whether it's outright wrong, or just
unclear. Either way it should be improved.
> * If rel is not NULL the horizon may be considerably more recent (i.e.
> * allowing more tuples to be removed) than otherwise. In the NULL case a
> * horizon that is correct (but not optimal) for all relations will be
> * returned. Thus, if possible, a relation should be provided.
That seems much better to me. The most important part is the last sentence.
The key idea is that you as a caller should provide a rel if at all
possible (and if not you should feel a pang of guilt). That emphasis
makes the potential consequences much more obvious.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-14 19:38:29 | Re: Direct I/O |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-14 19:33:39 | Re: Direct I/O |