Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
the performance issues.
What are the atomicity problems of adding a create/expire xid to the
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
the performance issues.
What are the atomicity problems of adding a
Tom Lane kirjutas L, 04.10.2003 kell 19:07:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christopher Browne kirjutas R, 03.10.2003 kell 00:57:
A while back I outlined how this would have to be done, and for it to
be done efficiently, it would be anything BUT simple.
Could this be made a
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point I was trying to make was that faster count(*)'s is just a side
effect. If we could (conditionally) keep visibility info in indexes,
I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
problems alone are sufficient reason why
Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point I was trying to make was that faster count(*)'s is just a side
effect. If we could (conditionally) keep visibility info in indexes,
I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
problems alone are
