Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
> >> problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
> >> the performance issues.
>
> > What are the atomicity problem
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
>> problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
>> the performance issues.
> What are the atomicity problems of adding a create/expire xi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The point I was trying to make was that faster count(*)'s is just a side
> > effect. If we could (conditionally) keep visibility info in indexes,
>
> I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
> problems
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point I was trying to make was that faster count(*)'s is just a side
> effect. If we could (conditionally) keep visibility info in indexes,
I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
problems alone are sufficient reason
Tom Lane kirjutas L, 04.10.2003 kell 19:07:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Christopher Browne kirjutas R, 03.10.2003 kell 00:57:
> >> A while back I outlined how this would have to be done, and for it to
> >> be done efficiently, it would be anything BUT simple.
>
> > Could this
