On 09/02/2013 02:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
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.
See what was just committed - the matview case is included for 9.3+ (as
it was in fact in the original - I must have been looking at older docs
when saw it wasn't there.)
I'll be back in an hour or so if any final tweeks are needed.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
