Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date
Msg-id 20927.1105923696@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)  ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>)
Responses Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)  (Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@gmail.com>)
Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)  ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> Wouldn't the original proposal that had a state machine handle this?
> IIRC the original idea was:

> new tuple -> known good -> possibly dead -> known dead

Only if you disallow the transition from possibly dead back to known
good, which strikes me as a rather large disadvantage.  Failed UPDATEs
aren't so uncommon that it's okay to have one permanently disable the
optimization.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Next
From: Jochem van Dieten
Date:
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)