On 2013-09-02 14:20:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/02/2013 01:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > >>Yes, possibly, but we can't do that now, but I would like to fix the > >>docs now. > >If you want this in 9.3.0 it needs to be committed in the next couple of > >hours. > > > >FWIW, the idea seemed generally sane to me, but I'd suggest not depending > >on reltoastrelid being zero when and only when there's no match. > >Why not test whether t.oid IS NULL, instead? > > > >Or actually, code it like this > > > > GREATEST(age(c.relfrozenxid), age(t.relfrozenxid)) > > > >and be done, as well as not having an ugly direct use of int4larger. > > > > > > > OK, I'll do it that way. Working on it now.
I'd vote for c.relkind != 't' AND NOT c.relfrozenxid = 0; instead of relkind = 'r' for the main relation, that way you'd include materialized views and stuff. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
