Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Matthias van de Meent
Subject Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update
Date
Msg-id CAEze2Wi2r86gWbM88nyTveKmVsKDRNeY1L+fNY3GcOX8qm+2Wg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 19:16, John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:30 PM Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is slightly more verbose, but I think this clarifies the
> > reasoning why we need this a bit better. Feel free to reject or adapt
> > as needed.
>
> I like this in general, but still has some rough edges. I've made another attempt in v5 incorporating your
suggestions.Let me know what you think.
 

That is indeed better.

I believe this is ready, so I've marked it as RFC in the commitfest application.

With regards,

Matthias van de Meent.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Replication slot stats misgivings