On 19 September 2014 15:35, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Having said that, this could reasonably be considered outside the scope > of a patch that's trying to improve the behavior for user queries. > But if the patch author doesn't want to expand the scope like that, > ISTM he ought to ensure that the behavior *doesn't* change for system > accesses, rather than trying to convince us that disabling HOT for > system updates is a good idea.
As I said, I could make an argument to go either way, so I was unsure. I'm happy to avoid changing behaviour for catalog scans in this patch. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
