Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqRWQR=PBQErVR9g8apP-OR1pK7DScbJZD1VWm0zMoW+9g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While looking at the module I found two mistakes in the docs:
>> pg_visibility_map and pg_visibility *not* taking in input a block
>> number are SRFs, and return a set of records. The documentation is
>> just listing them with "returns record". A patch is attached.
>
> And that: s/PD_ALL_VISIBILE/PD_ALL_VISIBLE.

And would it actually make sense to have pg_check_frozen(IN regclass,
IN blkno) to target only a certain page? Same for pg_check_visible. It
would take a long time to run those functions on large tables as they
scan all the pages of a relation at once..
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility
Next
From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
Date:
Subject: Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy