On 2014-08-15 13:33:20 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >it seems to make more sense to split -i into two. One to create the
> >tables, and another to fill them. That'd allow to do manual stuff
> >inbetween.
>
> Hmmm. This would mean much more changes than the pretty trivial patch I
> submitted
FWIW, I find that patch really ugly. Adding the filler's with in a
printf, after the actual DDL declaration. Without so much as a
comment. Brr.
>: more options (2 parts init + compatibility with the previous
> case), splitting the "init" function, having a dependency and new error
> cases to check (you must have the table to fill them), some options apply to
> first part while other apply to second part, which would lead in any case to
> a signicantly more complicated documentation... a lot of trouble for my use
> case to answer Josh pertinent comments, and to be able to test the "tuple
> size" factor easily. Moreover, I would reject it myself as too much trouble
> for a small benefit.
Well, it's something more generic, because it allows you do do more...
> Feel free to reject the patch if you do not want it. I think that its
> cost/benefit is reasonable (one small option, small code changes, some
> benefit for people who want to measure performance in various cases).
I personally think this isn't worth the price. But I'm just one guy.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services