Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-11 23:30:37 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Yea. I really don't like to take on such a major project to solve a
> > minor problem.
> > What I am thinking about right now is to expose a 'pg_blocknumber'
> > type. That only does very basic operations and implicitly
On 2014-05-30 12:00:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 May 2014 08:15, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >> But I concur that in practice, if you're dealing with 16TB tables, it's
> >> time
> >> to partition.
> >
> > Well, we need to improve our partitioning for that to be viable for all
> > relations.
On 12 May 2014 08:15, Andres Freund wrote:
>> But I concur that in practice, if you're dealing with 16TB tables, it's time
>> to partition.
>
> Well, we need to improve our partitioning for that to be viable for all
> relations. Not having usable foreign and unique keys makes it a pita in
> some
On 2014-05-11 23:30:37 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-11 12:24:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2014-05-10 23:21:34 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> And adding a proper unsigned type doe
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-05-12 10:07:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> But I concur that in practice, if you're dealing with 16TB tables, it's time
>> to partition.
> Well, we need to improve our partitioning for that to be viable for all
> relations. Not having usable foreign and uni
On 2014-05-12 10:07:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 12:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>>So if I were to take Andres'
> >>>complaint seriously at all, I'd be thinking in terms of "do we need to
> >>>widen BlockNumber to int64?", not "how do we make this print as
> >>>unsigned?".
On 05/12/2014 12:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>So if I were to take Andres'
>complaint seriously at all, I'd be thinking in terms of "do we need to
>widen BlockNumber to int64?", not "how do we make this print as
>unsigned?". But I doubt such a proposal would fly, because of the
>negative impact
On 2014-05-11 12:24:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-05-10 23:21:34 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >>> And adding a proper unsigned type doesn't sound like a small amount of
> >>> work.
>
> >> Perhaps
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-05-10 23:21:34 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> And adding a proper unsigned type doesn't sound like a small amount of work.
>> Perhaps not, but it's overdue. We ought to have one.
> Maybe. But there's so m
On 2014-05-10 23:21:34 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > And adding a proper unsigned type doesn't sound like a small amount of work.
>
> Perhaps not, but it's overdue. We ought to have one.
Maybe. But there's so many things to decide around
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> And adding a proper unsigned type doesn't sound like a small amount of work.
Perhaps not, but it's overdue. We ought to have one.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On May 9, 2014 10:37:49 PM CEST, Tom Lane wrote:
>Andres Freund writes:
>> That's nothing for 9.4 anymore, but shouldn't we make
>pg_class.relpages
>> a int8 (sounds slightly better than float to me) or somesuch?
>
>No; those are really BlockNumbers, and have always been. float4 would
>lose info
Andres Freund writes:
> That's nothing for 9.4 anymore, but shouldn't we make pg_class.relpages
> a int8 (sounds slightly better than float to me) or somesuch?
No; those are really BlockNumbers, and have always been. float4 would
lose information and float8 or int8 would waste space. If we had
13 matches
Mail list logo
