Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/20/2005 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Assuming that the saved header values don't need to be recomputed if the
> tuple doesn't need to be toasted at all, I think that toasting is
> expensive enough so that recomputing those values is hardly noticed.
Ye
On 11/20/2005 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 12:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
... The problem is that given the
current structure, that means changing the APIs of heap_insert and
heap_update, or else making near-duplicate versions that take
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 12:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... The problem is that given the
>> current structure, that means changing the APIs of heap_insert and
>> heap_update, or else making near-duplicate versions that take a
>> TupleTableSlot instead of a b
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 12:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "A better fix" seems to require passing the TupleTableSlot, not just the
> bare tuple, down to the toaster --- else there is no way for the toaster
> to update the data structure that it's accidentally invalidating. This
> seems like it might be
I looked into this 8.1 bug reported by Alexey Beschiokov:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-11/msg00192.php
The executive summary is: it looks like a kluge solution isn't hard,
but solving it in a more reasonable fashion is going to require some
significant API changes inside the backe
