Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing
> is removing functionality we might want someday. It's not hard to
> imagine pgstattuple or VACUUM or other maintenance operations wanting
> to look at killed index entries.
I suggested it n
Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2/10/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving
>> one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup.
> to clean code?
It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing
is
On 2/10/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true.
> > Is this still needed?
>
> What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving
> one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedu
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true.
> Is this still needed?
What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving
one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup.
regards, tom lane
