Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire
Date: 2014-03-04 11:37:41
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LgiozUb3Zgjwm9cJz8+Ub08m7-3VmgdyVvpq02oXVY_Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4 March 2014 04:18, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I know that patch truncates the values if they are greater than certain
>> length (30), but the point is why it is not sufficient to have tuple location
>> (and primary key if available) which uniquely identifies any tuple?
>
> The patch follows a pattern established elsewhere, so arguing for this
> change would be a change in existing behaviour that is outside the
> scope of this patch. Please raise a new thread if you wish that
> change, especially since it is opposed here.

Okay, I very well got this point and I was also not completely sure what
is the best thing to do for this specific point, thats why I had asked for
opinion of others upthread and there is a mixed feedback about it.
I think best thing is to leave this point for final committer's decision
and complete the other review/verification of patch.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-03-04 11:54:05 Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-03-04 11:07:15 Re: jsonb and nested hstore