On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 15:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> We also need something that will re-zero the stats when they reach > >>> anywhere near integer overflow, since we must not allow them to wrap. I > >>> would suggest we simply reset all values to zero for that table. > >> > >> pgstat counters are int64. > > > You would prefer undefined behaviour at wrap? > > You should live so long as to have a problem with it. Do the math: > at one increment every nanosecond, 24x7x365, you'd be risking overflow > after about 300 years of continuous initdb-less operation. For someone > opining that important features are OK to omit from HOT for 8.3, I have > to question your judgment in worrying about this.
I'm not worried about it, but I was mistaken in thinking you might be. If you're OK with HOT as-is, then sure, I'll have partial indexes too and much more besides. The question is: are you OK with HOT as-is? Should we take it further? How far? -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
