Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvyhank
Subject Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing
Date
Msg-id 1439190259800-5861534.post@n5.nabble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Having a freeze map would be wholly unnecessary if we don't ever need to
freeze whole tables again. Freezing would still be needed on individual
blocks where an old row has been updated or deleted; a freeze map would not
help there either.

So there is no conflict, but options 2) and 3) are completely redundant if
we go for 5). After investigation, I now think 5) is achievable in 9.6, but
if I am wrong for whatever reason, we have 2) as a backstop for more go to h
ttp://www.pillenpalast.com/ <http://www.pillenpalast.com/>  



-----
Kamagra http://www.pillenpalast.com/
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Summary-of-plans-to-avoid-the-annoyance-of-Freezing-tp5861530p5861534.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Asynchronous execution on FDW
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat