On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: >> Space in the tuple header is >> precious, and I am not at all convinced that we should be willing to >> surrender any for this. > > Thats a pretty tight space to maneuver in, though. So tight, in fact, > that I may as well give up, barring some absolutely genius idea, which > I don't even know where to look for at the moment. > > Every feature has its price, and if giving up on completely hypothetical > future savings is too costly, then surely anything else I might suggest > is too :-(
Of the ideas proposed so far, the idea of somehow making use of the existing multi-xid machinery to do this seems the most promising to me. But I haven't yet understood exactly what you're proposing, or fully thought through the performance implications, which is obviously something that needs to happen, and if that doesn't pan out, then, as I said upthread and you said here, yeah, we may need a new idea. It would be useful if some other folks weighed in on this, too. I understand what behavior we're trying to get here and why we want that, but I don't necessarily have the greatest understanding of all the details of the on-disk format. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
