Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42226442.1080206@samurai.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Tom Lane wrote: > I wouldn't mind seeing people be a little more vocal on the hackers list > about what they plan to be doing, just so that there's not duplication > of effort. Stuff I have done in some form that I need to finish up and submit: - GiST improvements: sane memory management, 10% scan perf. improvement (not sure if I'll get to WAL and page-level locking for 8.1) - CREATE TABLE AS overhaul & SQL 2003 compliance - pl/pgsql dead code checking (only for trivially-dead code) - default_with_oids=true by default - use # of CPUs at runtime to adjust spinlock behavior for UP systems Interested in looking at for 8.1 but no code yet: - PREPARE planning improvements (at the least, do the planning when we see the first EXECUTE, as in the fe/be protocol-level prepared statements) - various planner improvements; haven't really decided what specifically to do, yet - logical column ordering, and possibly repacking of physical order of columns to optimize disk space consumption by reducing alignment/padding requirements - O_DIRECT for WAL - UNIQUE predicate per SQL2003 Investigated, probably not worth pursuing: - GCC PGO support. At least in GCC 3.4, PGO is sufficiently flaky it isn't really worth adding support for it. Maybe I'll take another look when GCC 4.0 is out. - futexes in PG spinlocks. Didn't solve the CS problem, perf. improvement possibly (?) not worth the portability headaches. (Of course, absolutely no guarantees that I actually get around to implementing any of this stuff, this is just what's on my mind at the moment...) -Neil
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: