On 2013-09-02 14:20:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/02/2013 01:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> >>Yes, possibly, but we can't do that now, but I would like to fix the
> >>docs now.
> >If you want this in 9.3.0 it needs to be committed in the next couple of
> >hours.
> >
> >FWIW, the idea seemed generally sane to me, but I'd suggest not depending
> >on reltoastrelid being zero when and only when there's no match.
> >Why not test whether t.oid IS NULL, instead?
> >
> >Or actually, code it like this
> >
> > GREATEST(age(c.relfrozenxid), age(t.relfrozenxid))
> >
> >and be done, as well as not having an ugly direct use of int4larger.
> >
> >
>
>
> OK, I'll do it that way. Working on it now.
I'd vote for c.relkind != 't' AND NOT c.relfrozenxid = 0; instead of
relkind = 'r' for the main relation, that way you'd include materialized
views and stuff.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services