On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:10:08AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
> >"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I've just been asked to clarify what actually happens when a DELETE takes
> >>place, and what happens to TOASTed data.
> >
> >What does this have to do w
Greg Stark wrote:
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've just been asked to clarify what actually happens when a DELETE takes
place, and what happens to TOASTed data.
What does this have to do with "x86_64 configure problem"?
I believe this was a new thread but Outlook or the new server
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote
>> It would be nice to push the TOAST deletions off to become the
>> responsibility of VACUUM, but I'm not entirely sure how to do that
>> without giving up the UPDATE optimization of shared values.
> That could be optimised, but there ar
> Tom Lane wrote
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My answer was this, though this was not thought accurate (on the DELETE
> > aspect):
>
> This is correct as far as it goes, but given the question I imagine some
> further detail is appropriate:
>
> * When deleting a row that has out-
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My answer was this, though this was not thought accurate (on the DELETE
> aspect):
This is correct as far as it goes, but given the question I imagine some
further detail is appropriate:
* When deleting a row that has out-of-line-toasted fields, we must
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just been asked to clarify what actually happens when a DELETE takes
> place, and what happens to TOASTed data.
What does this have to do with "x86_64 configure problem"?
--
greg
---(end of broadcast)--
