Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> writes:
> --On 24. Januar 2010 08:37:13 -0500 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I think the problem case here might be something like this...
> Did that with a crude pl/pgsql script, and got the following numbers:
I think my concern about the original proposal was that the time to
perform an ALTER RENAME would increase with the number of tables in the
database, even if they were entirely unrelated to the one you're trying
to rename. It's not clear to me whether the present coding of the patch
avoids that. But in any case, the alternative implementation I
suggested would have added essentially zero runtime, so even a 50%
slowdown seems like sacrificing a lot.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
