Add comment on why pulling data from a "name" index column can't crash.
It's been bothering me for several days that pretending that the cstring
data stored in a btree name_ops column is really a "name" Datum could lead
to reading past the end of memory. However, given the current memory
layout u
Generate index-only scan tuple descriptor from the plan node's indextlist.
Dept. of second thoughts: as long as we've got that tlist hanging around
anyway, we can apply ExecTypeFromTL to it to get a suitable descriptor for
the ScanTupleSlot. This is a nicer solution than the previous one because
Improve entab's Makefile install entry.
Andrew Dunstan
Branch
--
master
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e991930e8a2394169d95e9a4c175a1fdf812ef04
Modified Files
--
src/tools/entab/Makefile |4 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
Document that not backing up postmaster.pid and postmaster.opts might
help prevent pg_ctl from getting confused.
Backpatch to 9.1.
Branch
--
REL9_1_STABLE
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/35db9d0ab8a81470b2be62728105cfa36e26e56c
Modified Files
--
doc/src/s
Document that not backing up postmaster.pid and postmaster.opts might
help prevent pg_ctl from getting confused.
Backpatch to 9.1.
Branch
--
master
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/47cacfc0f171c7794a8a953e4676db60e1fb261c
Modified Files
--
doc/src/sgml/bac
On 11 October 2011 21:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> So an index-only scan is 30 times slower in this particular test case.
>
> Don't see why you'd find that unexpected. If you have to visit all the
> rows, a seqscan is usually going to be the best way. An indexscan only
> has a ch
Thom Brown writes:
> So an index-only scan is 30 times slower in this particular test case.
Don't see why you'd find that unexpected. If you have to visit all the
rows, a seqscan is usually going to be the best way. An indexscan only
has a chance of winning when the index is much smaller than t
On 11 October 2011 20:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Consider index-only scans even when there is no matching qual or ORDER BY.
>>>
>>> By popular demand.
>
>> Is this the COUNT(*) optimization?
>
> Yeah, among other cases.
This is unexpected:
test=# explain
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Consider index-only scans even when there is no matching qual or ORDER BY.
>>
>> By popular demand.
> Is this the COUNT(*) optimization?
Yeah, among other cases.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pg
Tom Lane wrote:
> Consider index-only scans even when there is no matching qual or ORDER BY.
>
> By popular demand.
Is this the COUNT(*) optimization?
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everyt
Consider index-only scans even when there is no matching qual or ORDER BY.
By popular demand.
Branch
--
master
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/600d3206d1b3f8b540397b79905486a536ac7f78
Modified Files
--
src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c | 25
Rearrange the implementation of index-only scans.
This commit changes index-only scans so that data is read directly from the
index tuple without first generating a faux heap tuple. The only immediate
benefit is that indexes on system columns (such as OID) can be used in
index-only scans, but thi
Replace hardcoded switch in object_exists() with a lookup table.
There's no particular advantage to this change on its face; indeed,
it's possible that this might be slightly slower than the old way.
But it makes this information more easily accessible to other
functions, and therefore paves the w
Repair breakage in VirtualXactLock.
I broke this in commit 84e37126770dd6de903dad88ce150a49b63b5ef9. Report and
fix by Fujii Masao.
Branch
--
master
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e76bcaba9cb330b32e9a80dfe9cd510d802121c4
Modified Files
--
src/backend/st
14 matches
Mail list logo