On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 03:58:19PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > >>I also think there's better ways we could handle *all* our cleanup > >>work. Tuples have a definite lifespan, and there's potentially a lot > >>of efficiency to be gained if we could track tuples through their > >>stages of life... but I don't see any easy ways to do that. > > > >See the TODO list: > > > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo > > o Avoid the requirement of freezing pages that are infrequently > > modified > > Right, but do you have a proposal for how that would actually happen? > > Perhaps I'm mis-understanding you, but it sounded like you were > opposed to this patch because it doesn't do anything to avoid the > need to freeze. My point is that no one has any good ideas on how to > avoid freezing, and I think it's a safe bet that any ideas people do > come up with there will be a lot more invasive than a FrozenMap is.
Didn't you think any of the TODO threads had workable solutions? And don't expect adding an additional file per relation will be zero cost --- added over the lifetime of 200M transactions, I question if this approach would be a win. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
