Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoagVZPF2ZXaK6XByg8MH3Y4dbzBF0d4e05arSahYF_9dA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> As I commented to Robert, the page-at-a-time behavior of pageinspect
>>> is not an API detail we'd want to copy for this.  I envision something
>>> like
>>>
>>> select hdr.*, foo.*
>>> from tuple_header_details('foo'::regclass) as hdr
>>> left join foo on hdr.ctid = foo.ctid;
>>>
>>> On a large table you might want a version that restricts its scan
>>> to pages M through N, but that's just optimization.  More useful
>>> would be to improve the planner's intelligence about joins on ctid ...
>
>> /me blinks.
>
>> Surely you're not serious.  That's going to scan the whole darn table
>> even if we only want the details for one row.
>
> And?  The complaint about the other function was that it was inefficient
> when getting the details for a whole table, so I don't think you can
> complain about an approach that handles that case well.  Use the other
> function if you just want info for one row (that you can see).

Well, that's fair enough.  I don't mind having two functions.  Should
the whole-table function also include invisible tuples?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze