| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Date: | 2013-05-03 16:49:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20130503164946.GB15498@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:45:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2013-05-03 12:10:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Right. The whole thing is just a kluge, which I'm convinced we'll
> >> regret sooner or later --- probably sooner.
>
> > I tentatively agree as well. The only argument for introducing some
> > additional location for such information is that it would be the start
> > of an infrastructure for information we would need for incrementally
> > adding checksums, page upgrades and such.
>
> It's possible that a metadata fork would be a good design for such
> stuff, but I'd want to see a pretty completely worked-out design before
> committing to the idea. In any case we're way too late in the 9.3 cycle
> to be considering something like that right now.
Yes, I think the big question is how much information do we want per
relation that we don't need in the system tables.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-05-03 16:55:27 | Re: Documentation epub format |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-03 16:45:36 | Re: Remaining beta blockers |