On 20 June 2017 at 06:49, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 15:45:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2017-04-05 17:00:42 +1000, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
>> > Regarding test patch, I have corrected the test suite after David Steele's
>> > comments.
>> > Also, I would like to mention that a companion patch was submitted by David
>> > Steele up-thread.
>> >
>> > Attached the latest code and test patch.
>>
>> My impression is that this'll need a couple more rounds of review. Given
>> that this'll establish API we'll pretty much ever going to be able to
>> change/remove, I think it'd be a bad idea to rush this into v10.
>> Therefore I propose moving this to the next CF.
>
> Craig, Vaishnavi, everyone else: Are you planning to continue to work on
> this for v11? I'm willing to do another round, but only if it's
> worthwhile.
I'm happy to work on review, and will try to make some time, but have
to focus primarily on logical rep infrastructure. This patch was a
proof of concept and fun hack for me and while I'm glad folks are
interested, it's not something I can dedicate much time to. Especially
with a 6-week-old baby now....
> FWIW, I still think this needs a pgbench or similar example integration,
> so we can actually properly measure the benefits.
I agree. I originally wanted to patch psql, but it's pretty intrusive.
pgbench is likely a better target. Also pg_restore.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services