Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 12:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The DROP COLUMN form does not physically remove the column, but
>> simply makes it invisible to SQL operations. Subsequent insert and
>> update operations in the table will store a null value for the
>
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 12:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > we came across a database where a table had a toasted table,
> > keeping huge amounts of disk space allocated. However,
> > the table's current definition didn't explain why there was
> > a toast
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think the issue is identifying the problem. Reading the title of the
> > post, I think Tom says "no" to *deleting* the toast table. He also says
> > "no" to cleaning the table as part of DROP COLUMN.
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm I wonder if this doesn't have the same problems you're describing with
> the toaster. If someone has a cursor WITH HOLD against the table they don't
> get a session level lock against the tables which fed the cursor do
> they?
Hmm, interesting po
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think the issue is identifying the problem. Reading the title of the
>> post, I think Tom says "no" to *deleting* the toast table. He also says
>> "no" to cleaning the table as part of DROP COLUMN. That still leav
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think the issue is identifying the problem. Reading the title of the
> > post, I think Tom says "no" to *deleting* the toast table. He also says
> > "no" to cleaning the table as part of DROP COLUMN.
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the issue is identifying the problem. Reading the title of the
> post, I think Tom says "no" to *deleting* the toast table. He also says
> "no" to cleaning the table as part of DROP COLUMN. That still leaves you
> an opening for an out-of-line comma
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:59 +0200, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I thought Hans meant cleanup, not drop?
> we definitely have to do something about this problem.
I think the issue is identifying the problem. Reading the title of the
post, I th
On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 12:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
... and it goes on to point out how to force immediate space
reclamation
if you need that. These statements apply independently of whether
any
particular value is toasted or not.
The reas
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 12:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... and it goes on to point out how to force immediate space reclamation
> if you need that. These statements apply independently of whether any
> particular value is toasted or not.
>
> The reason for this choice is that reclaiming the space
"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ... And implementing it would require introducing weird
>> corner cases into the tuple toaster, because it might now come across
>> TOAST pointers that point to a no-longer-existent table, and have to
>> consider that to be
*snip*
Judging from that, the toasted table
cleanup may be part of ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN.
That would only help if you were dropping the last potentially-
toastable
column of a table. And implementing it would require introducing
weird
corner cases into the tuple toaster, because it m
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> we came across a database where a table had a toasted table,
> keeping huge amounts of disk space allocated. However,
> the table's current definition didn't explain why there was
> a toasted table. Then upon some experiments, it struck me.
> There _
Hi,
we came across a database where a table had a toasted table,
keeping huge amounts of disk space allocated. However,
the table's current definition didn't explain why there was
a toasted table. Then upon some experiments, it struck me.
There _was_ a toasted field but as the schema was modified,
14 matches
Mail list logo
