Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hint Bits and Write I/O
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <87lk0rq7is.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
References: <1211916951.4489.232.camel@ebony.site>
	<15901.1211931165@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1213797209.9468.126.camel@ebony.site>
	<20080618143212.GE5077@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<87lk0rq7is.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:53:56 +0100
Message-Id: <1214578436.3845.413.camel@ebony.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:25 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> 
> > If only VACUUM is going to set "flexible" to off, maybe it's better to
> > leave the APIs as they are and have a global that's set by VACUUM only
> > (and reset in a PG_CATCH block).
> 
> Ugh. Perhaps it would be simpler to have a wrapper function HTSV() macro which
> passes flexible=true to HTSV_internal(). Then vacuum can call HTSV_internal().
> 
> I'm not sure what the performance tradeoff is between having an extra argument
> to HTSV and having HTSV check a global which messes with optimizations.

Doing this doesn't actually reduce the size of the patch much, as it
turns out, so I suggest we don't do this.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support