On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:20:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Reason for no documentation was that CREATE INDEX and CREATE TABLE AS
SELECT already use this optimisation, but to my knowledge neither was/is
documented on those command
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:46:29AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The patch sets HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED on all of the rows loaded by COPY as
well.
I think you just talked yourself out of getting this
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 12:59 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:46:29AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The patch sets HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED on all of the rows loaded by COPY as
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think you just talked yourself out of getting this patch applied.
Maybe; what would be your explanation?
The main reason is that you were guilty of false advertising. This
patch was described as being
I wrote:
... The active-portal kluge that you've just
mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases
where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything.
BTW, a sufficient counterexample for that kluge is that neither SPI or
SQL-function execution use a
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no failure condition where the rows continue to exist
on disk the table relfilenode shows a committed transaction pointing
to the file containing the marked-valid-but-actually-not rows.
What of
BEGIN;
CREATE TABLE foo ...;
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think you just talked yourself out of getting this patch applied.
Maybe; what would be your explanation?
The main reason is that you were guilty
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
... The active-portal kluge that you've just
mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases
where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything.
BTW, a sufficient counterexample for that kluge
