| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT (was Question: pg_classattributes and race conditions ?) |
| Date: | 2007-03-19 15:29:56 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150703190829k60765f8r868077496a15b47a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/17/07, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm very comfortable with the idea that HOT can be turned on/off for a
> table. That gives us a workaround to bugs. Previously, changing things
> like WITHOUT OIDS was done over two releases, so I'd suggest the same
> thing here. Add the option now, disabled, then look to make it the
> default option in the next release. We can override that with the
> default_use_hot parameter for those that feel bold, at least initially.
> I know Bruce has been long opposed to the idea of a table-level switch,
> which is why we've been trying so hard to avoid it. So we should add his
> -1 to this idea from the start.
Is fear of bugs a justification of guc setting? Or is there a
trade-off involved with HOT?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-03-19 15:36:37 | Re: getTypeIOParam is wrong for domains over array types? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-19 15:13:55 | getTypeIOParam is wrong for domains over array types? |