RE: In-placre persistance change of a relation
От | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | TYAPR01MB2990D25E5CE77A095ADC90A3FEE60@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: In-placre persistance change of a relation
Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Horiguchi-san, Thank you for making a patch so quickly. I've started looking at it. What makes you think this is a PoC? Documentation and test cases? If there's something you think that doesn't work or areconcerned about, can you share it? Do you know the reason why data copy was done before? And, it may be odd for me to ask this, but I think I saw someone referredto the past discussion that eliminating data copy is difficult due to some processing at commit. I can't find it. (1) @@ -168,6 +168,8 @@ extern PGDLLIMPORT int32 *LocalRefCount; */ #define BufferGetPage(buffer) ((Page)BufferGetBlock(buffer)) +struct SmgrRelationData; This declaration is already in the file: /* forward declared, to avoid having to expose buf_internals.h here */ struct WritebackContext; /* forward declared, to avoid including smgr.h here */ struct SMgrRelationData; Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: