> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> >>> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> >>> If it were this simple a change, I'm not certain why (I believe) PG
> >>>is checking each and every row to see if it will fit into the new column
> >>> definition/type.
> >Because the code that does the ALTER TYPE is very generic, and it
> > doesn't (yet) have an optimization that tells it to skip the check
> > and the possible table rewrite in the cases where it's obviously not
> >needed(like this one).
> If there's some low-hanging fruit here, +1 for getting that.
I just tested this out and everything seems to be working fine. (cross
fingers - for now and if I do report back, it means we've crashed and
burned, but as of now... the low hanging fruit is tasty)
This 2 sec change is much preferred over the 3+ hour per table.
I agree with Tom that this is not useful in _all_ cases and may seem to
look like a hack, but it really isn't. Given that the condition that
we're expaning the min length rather than the opposite, it should be
pretty safe.
Guys(/gals) Thanks very much for brightening up a dreadry Monday
morning.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
No comments:
Post a Comment