Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 15 June 2013 00:01, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> If we're going to start adding reloptions for specific table behavior,
>> I'd rather think of all of the optimizations we might have for a
>> prospective "append-only table" and bundle those, rather than tying it
>> to whether a certain index exists or not.
> I agree that the FSM behaviour shouldn't be linked to index existence.
> IMHO that should be a separate table parameter, WITH (fsm_mode = append)
> Index only scans would also benefit from that.
-1 ... I cannot believe that such a parameter would ever get turned on
in production by anyone. If your table has a significant update rate,
the resulting table bloat would make such behavior completely
infeasible. If you have few enough updates to make such a behavior
practical, then you can live with the expensive index updates instead.
I also find the analogy to index-only scans to be bogus, because those
didn't require any user tuning.
There's a nearby thread complaining bitterly about our willingness to
create hard-to-use, hard-to-tune "features". In its current form,
this will be another one of those.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
