Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barb...@gmail.com> writes: > 2010/8/25 Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com>: >> You're exactly correct and I now understand Markus' comment. Do you >> think that exact meaning prevents my proposal from being useful?
> Not at all, because I guess that updates to non-UNIQUE columns are way > more common that updates to UNIQUE columns. In particular, HOT updates are known useful even though they have that restriction and more. It strikes me that a possibly useful simplification of the idea is a lock type that allows HOT updates and not non-HOT ones; or more precisely not ones that change any indexed columns --- if the row ends up having to go off-page for lack of space, that need not concern us. 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