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)
pgpXfGeddWvmd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
