Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal

> If any restructuring happens which removes, or makes optional, some of
> the fundamental types, it should be accomplished so that the types can
> be added in transparently, from a single set of source code, during
> build time or after. OIDs would have to be assigned, presumably, and the
> hardcoding of the function lookups for builtin types must somehow be
> done incrementally. Probably needs more than this to be done right, and
> without careful planning and implementation we will be taking a big step
> backwards.


This whole discussion reminds me of someone who thinks he is getting low
gas milage because his tire pressure is low, when in fact, he has a
whole in his gas tank.  We have some major holes to plug, but they are
hard to see.  People see the tire pressure/pg_class table, and think the
database can be improved.  You could double the size of the system
tables, or the binary, and see no performance change.  Make them
10-times bigger, and see if you find a difference.

Aren't there enough serious issues on the TODO list for people?  These
are actual complaints/bugs or requests from users, not pie-in-the-sky
wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-we-had ideas.

I had a private e-mail conversation with someone, and they mentioned
that we seem to be mired in micro-optimizations, that really are not
going to do us any significant good.  I see his point.

Look at the TCL/TK mess I got into just trying to get that to work, and
removing the stuff that checked for specific tck/tk version numbers.
Can you imagine the effort we will go through ripping out types?

Another thing.  It is the type extensibility that makes us more complex,
not the types themselves.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)