| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench |
| Date: | 2014-09-24 18:39:38 |
| Message-ID: | 54230FEA.9080800@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/24/2014 09:34 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>> The idea of a modulo operator was not rejected, we'd just like to have the
>> infrastructure in place first.
>
> Sigh.
>
> How to transform a trivial 10 lines patch into a probably 500+ lines
> project involving flex & bison & some non trivial data structures, and
> which may get rejected on any ground...
That's how we get good features. It's very common for someone to need X,
and to post a patch that does X. Other people pop up that need Y and Z
which are similar, and you end up implementing those too. It's more work
for you in the short term, but it benefits everyone in the long run.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-24 18:45:27 | Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-09-24 18:39:35 | json_object_agg return on no rows |