Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs >> wrote: >>> >>> On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >>> On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >>> Easy enough to do it at the end of the COPY FREEZE in

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > >> On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> Index-only scans will visit the heap for each tuple until the

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Index-only scans will visit the heap for each tuple until the first VACUUM >> is done. >> >> The first vacuum will read the entire table, but not

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > It turns out it was pretty easy to set PD_ALL_VISIBLE on the new pages, > > since the code in hio that requests the relation to be extended

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > It turns out it was pretty easy to set PD_ALL_VISIBLE on the new pages, > since the code in hio that requests the relation to be extended already has > info on the tuple's intended freeze status. > > Then you just need to

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set >>

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On 18 October 2015 at 17:23, Jeff Janes wrote: > I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set > PD_ALL_VISIBLE. Or is there some reason this can't be done? > > Since the whole point of COPY FREEZE is to avoid needing to rewrite the > entire table, it seems

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set > PD_ALL_VISIBLE. > > Or is there some reason this can't be done? > > > > Since

Re: [HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set PD_ALL_VISIBLE. > Or is there some reason this can't be done? > > Since the whole point of COPY FREEZE is to avoid needing to rewrite the > entire table, it seems

[HACKERS] COPY FREEZE and PD_ALL_VISIBLE

I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set PD_ALL_VISIBLE. Or is there some reason this can't be done? Since the whole point of COPY FREEZE is to avoid needing to rewrite the entire table, it seems rather perverse that the first time the table is vacuumed, it needs to rewrite the