Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This 001 patch looks so little like what I was expecting that I
>> decided to start over from scratch.  The new version I wrote is
>> attached here.  I don't understand why your version tinkers with the
>> logic for setting the all-frozen bit; I thought that what I already
>> committed dealt with that already, and in any case, your version
>> doesn't even compile against latest sources.  Your version also leaves
>> the scan_all terminology intact even though it's not accurate any
>> more, and I am not very convinced that the updates to the
>> page-skipping logic are actually correct.  Please have a look over
>> this version and see what you think.
>
> Thank you for your advise.
> Sorry, optimising logic of previous patch was old by mistake.
> Attached latest patch incorporated your suggestions with a little revising.

Thanks.  I adopted some of your suggested, rejected others, fixed a
few minor things that I missed previously, and committed this.  If you
think any of the changes that I rejected still have merit, please
resubmit those changes as separate patches.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company