On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any >>> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of >>> standard_conforming_strings, >> >> Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute >> (or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest >> exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE. > > Oh, hmm, interesting. I had been thinking that you were talking about > a case where *user code* was relying on the semantics of the TID, > which has always struck me as an implementation detail that users > probably shouldn't get too attached to. But now I see that you're > talking about something much more basic - the fundamental > implementation of UPDATE and DELETE relies on the TID not changing > under them. That pretty much kills this idea dead in the water.
Surely it just stops you using that idea 100% of the time. I don't see why you can't have this co-exist with the current mechanism. So it doesn't kill it for the common case. But would the idea deliver much value? Is line pointer bloat a problem? (I have no idea if it is/is not) -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
