Re: ANALYZE patch for review
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ANALYZE patch for review |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23619.1079367007@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ANALYZE patch for review ("Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
"Mark Cave-Ayland" <m.cave-ayland@webbased.co.uk> writes: > Having been working with the PostGIS team to implement a custom analyze > routine for R-Tree selectivity, we have a question regarding the new > vacuum_delay_point() which is present in analyze.c. Is it the > responsibility of the programmers to remember to do a > vacuum_delay_point() before calling the fetch_func(), or would it be > better to move the vacuum_delay_point() into std_fetch_func()? It's probably not really necessary to call vacuum_delay_point in the analysis routine, unless you are contemplating extremely expensive analysis. If you did have an expensive loop, would std_fetch_func necessarily be called inside it? It seems inappropriate to me to put vacuum_delay_point inside std_fetch_func --- it's the analysis programmer's business to understand whether it must be called, and if so where's an appropriate place. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: