On 11/29/2013 06:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Note that Robert's proposed solution is no solution, because it just puts you right back in the bind of needing guaranteed non-lossy storage of a TID set that might be too big to fit in memory.
The solution should work if we could guarantee that a TIDBitmap based on the fast update pending list always will fit in the memory. That does not sound like a good assumption to me.
-- Andreas Karlsson -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
