Jeff Janes <[email protected]> writes:
> On Dec 29, 2015 4:47 PM, "Tom Lane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Uh, isn't that what my patch is doing?
> My reading was it does that only if there are no tuples that could be
> frozen. If there are tuples that could be frozen, it actually does
> the freezing, even though that is not necessary unless scan_all is
> true.
Ah, now I see.
> So like the attached, although it is a bit weird to call
> lazy_check_needs_freeze if , under !scan_all, we don't actually care
> about whether it needs freezing but only the hastup.
True, but this is such a corner case that it doesn't seem worth expending
additional code to have a special-purpose page scan for it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
