Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170131225101.2l2fft4nnq525lx7@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-01-31 17:21:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Hm, sorry for missing this earlier. I think CatalogUpdateIndexes() is > > fairly widely used in extensions - it seems like a pretty harsh change > > to not leave some backward compatibility layer in place. > > If an extension is doing that, it is probably constructing tuples to put > into the catalog, which means it'd be equally (and much more quietly) > broken by any change to the catalog's schema. We've never considered > such an argument as a reason not to change catalog schemas, though. I know of several extensions that use CatalogUpdateIndexes() to update their own tables. Citus included (It's trivial to change on our side, so that's not a reason to do or not do something). There really is no convenient API to do so without it. > (I'm a little more concerned by Alvaro's apparent position that WARM > is a done deal; I didn't think so. This particular change seems like > good cleanup anyhow, however.) Yea, I don't think we're even close to that either. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: