Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
Subject: Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes
Date: 2006-08-14 11:58:12
Message-ID: 22273.1155556692@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I was thinking, isn't it a lot cleaner to define the functions to use
> OUT parameters instead of having to define a custom type for each?

Not really --- it's a bit less notation maybe, but if he's got it
written like that already, I see no need to change it.

> Also, in 8.2 there is a uninstall SQL script -- ISTM you should put the
> DROP commands there, not in the install script.

Agreed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-08-14 12:09:36 Re: Google SoC--Idea Request
Previous Message ohp 2006-08-14 09:22:54 Re: Warthog failing

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2006-08-14 14:15:56 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-08-14 04:51:40 Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes