Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Don Baccus
Тема Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size
Дата
Msg-id 3.0.1.32.20000228062141.00fc5080@mail.pacifier.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size  (wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Список pgsql-hackers
At 09:28 AM 2/28/00 +0100, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> > > If you could keep the labels just for EXPLAIN, go for it.
>> >
>> >     Not right now, put it onto TODO for after 7.0.
>>
>> But we just required initdb for lztext.  If we need another initdb
>> later, maybe we should do it?
>
>    LZTEXT  was  a  fairly  limited change, tested out before and
>    just reapplied. This time you ask for mucking with the family
>    of  node-print  and  -read  functions. Even if it's a limited
>    area of code affected, I don't feel comfortable doing it now.

And lztext compression of the rule strings is such a big win that
I suspect folks upgrading from 6.5 to 7.0 won't have to worry about
having their views blow up in their face.  So the "mini-crisis" is
solved, folks will be able to upgrade smoothly, and in practice will
be able to build views on tables with many more columns.

Removing the additional verbosity from the rule strings is also a
good idea, but doesn't feel like a critical-path thing to me.  So
I think Jan's right, it can wait.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
 


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Don Baccus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd trigger does not work very well
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size