| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2 features status |
| Date: | 2006-08-04 17:01:28 |
| Message-ID: | 200608041001.28333.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Luke,
> Yep. Fix the visibility issue - there are a number of good ideas on how to
> do it, we are in a position to bang it out now IMO.
Actually, a group of us discussed this at the Code Sprint in Toronto, and came
up with a plan which will also reduce row overhead on large tables. I can't
remember who was working on that though.
> >> We already have splitting queries among CPUs and machines.
> >
> > Yes, YOU do. We don't.
>
> Details, details - redefine "We" and it's the same thing.
Well, if you'll give us the schedule for open-sourcing MPP 2.0 ... ;-)
And actually, even incorporating very limited multi-threading of queries ...
such as the proposal to dispatch an I/O thread for seq scans ... would help
PostgreSQL a lot.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mdean | 2006-08-04 17:15:35 | Re: 8.2 features status |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-04 16:59:35 | Re: ecpg test suite |