Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130123212757.GY16126@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
(Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki, * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote: > FWIW, here's how I feel about some the patches. It's not an exhaustive list. Thanks for going through them and commenting on them. > "Event Triggers: Passing Information to User Functions (from 2012-11)" > I don't care about this whole feature, and haven't looked at the > patch.. Probably not worth the complexity. But won't object if > someone else wants to deal with it. I'd like to see it happen. > "Extension templates" > Same as above. This one isn't actually all that complex, though it does add a few additional catalogs for keeping track of things. For my part, I'd like to see this go in as I see it being another step closer to Packages that a certain other RDBMS has. > "Checksums (initdb-time)" > I don't want this feature, and I've said that on the thread. I see a lot of value in this. > "Identity projection (partitioning)" > Nothing's happened for over a month. Seems dead for that reason. I don't think this is dead.. > "Remove unused targets from plan" > Same here. > > "Store additional information in GIN index" > Same here. Havn't been following these so not sure. Some of these are in a state of lack of progress for having not been reviewed. > "Index based regexp search for pg_trgm" > I'd like to see this patch go in, but it still needs a fair amount > of work. Probably needs to be pushed to next commitfest for that > reason. Agreed. > "allowing privileges on untrusted languages" > Seems like a bad idea to me, for the reasons Tom mentioned on that thread. On the fence about this one. I like the idea of reducing the need to be a superuser, but there are risks associated with this change also. > "Skip checkpoint on promoting from streaming replication" > Given that we still don't have an updated patch for this, it's > probably getting too late for this. Would be nice to see the patch > or an explanation of the new design Simon's been working. > > "Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages (from 2012-11)" > Meh. Seems like a really special-purpose tool. Probably better to > put this on pgfoundry. Agreed on these two. > "logical changeset generation v4" > This is a boatload of infrastructure for supporting logical > replication, yet we have no code actually implementing logical > replication that would go with this. The premise of logical > replication over trigger-based was that it'd be faster, yet we > cannot asses that without a working implementation. I don't think > this can be committed in this state. Andres had a working implementation of logical replication, with code to back it up and performance numbers showing how much faster it is, at PGCon last year, as I recall... Admittedly, it probably needs changing and updating due to the changes which the patches have been going through, but I don't think the claim that we don't know it's faster is fair. > "built-in/SQL Command to edit the server configuration file > (postgresql.conf)" > I think this should be a pgfoundry project, not in core. At least for now. I don't think it would ever get deployed or used then.. > "json generator function enhacements" > "Json API and extraction functions" > To be honest, I don't understand why the json datatype had to be > built-in to begin with. But it's too late to object to that now, and > if the datatype is there, these functions probably should be, too. > Or could these be put into a separate "json-extras" extension? I > dunno. There were good reasons to add json as a data type, I thought, though I don't have them offhand. > "psql watch" > Meh. In practice, for the kind of ad-hoc monitoring this would be > useful for, you might as well just use "watch psql -c 'select ...' > ". Yes, that reconnects for each query, but so what. I do that pretty often. A better approach, imv, would be making psql a bit more of a 'real' shell, with loops, conditionals, better variable handling, etc. > "plpgsql_check_function" > I don't like this in its current form. A lot of code that mirrors > pl_exec.c. I think we'll have to find a way to somehow re-use the > existing code for this. Like, compile the function as usual, but > don't stop on error. Havn't looked at this yet, but your concerns make sense to me. Thanks! Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Heikki LinnakangasДата:
Сообщение: Re: [sepgsql 1/3] add name qualified creation label
Следующее
От: Stephen FrostДата:
Сообщение: Re: Potential TODO: schema in ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES?