On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>
Index-only scans will visit the heap for each tuple until the first
>
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs
wrote:
>
>
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs
>>> wrote:
Easy enough to do it at the end of the COPY FREEZE in one step
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs
wrote:
>>>
>>> Easy enough to do it at the end of the COPY FREEZE in one step.
>>
>>
>> Here, we might want to consider that setting bit in vi
On 3 November 2015 at 15:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
>
>> On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>> Index-only scans will visit the heap for each tuple until the first
>>> VACUUM is done.
>>>
>>> The first vacuum will read the entire
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > It turns out it was pretty easy to set PD_ALL_VISIBLE on the new pages,
> > since the code in hio that requests the relation to be extended already
has
> > info on the tuple's intended f
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> Index-only scans will visit the heap for each tuple until the first VACUUM
>> is done.
>>
>> The first vacuum will read the entire table, but not need to write it
>> anymore. And will create
On 18 October 2015 at 17:23, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set
> PD_ALL_VISIBLE. Or is there some reason this can't be done?
>
> Since the whole point of COPY FREEZE is to avoid needing to rewrite the
> entire table, it seems rather perverse that the
On 21 October 2015 at 13:31, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set
>> PD_ALL_VISIBLE.
>> > Or is there some reason this can't be done?
>> >
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> It turns out it was pretty easy to set PD_ALL_VISIBLE on the new pages,
> since the code in hio that requests the relation to be extended already has
> info on the tuple's intended freeze status.
>
> Then you just need to refrain from clearing P
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set
> PD_ALL_VISIBLE.
> > Or is there some reason this can't be done?
> >
> > Since the whole point of COPY FREEZE is to avoid needi
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I'm planning on adding a todo item to have COPY FREEZE set PD_ALL_VISIBLE.
> Or is there some reason this can't be done?
>
> Since the whole point of COPY FREEZE is to avoid needing to rewrite the
> entire table, it seems rather perverse that th
12 matches
Mail list logo
