Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> While we accept that visibility map is good for read only application, why
> can't we make it optional? Atleast if there is a way for a person to drop
> the visibility map for a table(if it gets created by default), the
> application need not incur the overhead for those tables, when it knows it
> is update intensive / with batch jobs.
If you have a scenario where the visibility map incurs a measurable
overhead, let's hear it. I didn't see any in the tests I performed, but
it's certainly possible that if the circumstances are just right it
makes a difference.
> Again not to deviate from my initial question, can we make a decision
> regarding unstable/mutable functions / broken data types ?
*Sigh*. Yes. You need to deal with them.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
