On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 12:53:51PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact, now that I think about it there is no other
> > fundamental reason to not support HOT on system tables. So we
> > can very well do what you are suggesting.
> >
> >
> On second thought, I wonder if there is really much to gain by
> supporting HOT on system tables and whether it would justify all
> the complexity. Initially I thought about CatalogUpdateIndexes to
> which we need to teach HOT. Later I also got worried about
> building the HOT attribute lists for system tables and handling
> all the corner cases for bootstrapping and catalog REINDEX.
> It might turn out to be straight forward, but I am not able to
> establish that with my limited knowledge in the area.
> I would still vote for disabling HOT on catalogs unless you see
> strong value in it.

What about ANALYZE? Doesn't that do a lot of updates?

BTW, I'm 100% in favor of pushing system catalog HOT until later; it's
be silly to risk not getting hot in 8.3 because of catalog HOT.
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

Attachment: pgpXfGeddWvmd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to