From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE) |
Date: | 2012-12-06 17:02:53 |
Message-ID: | 20121206170253.GU5162@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> It's not a bug. Requesting a useful, but not critical optimisation is
> just a hint. The preconditions are not easy to understand, so I see no
> reason to punish people that misunderstand, or cause programs to fail
> in ways that need detailed understanding to make them work again.
I tend to agree with Andres on this one. This feels a bit like
accepting a command but then not actually following-through on it
if it turns out we can't actually do it. If it's truely an optimization
(and I suspect my other email/question might provide insight into that),
then it should be something we can 'just do' without needing to be asked
to do it, along the same lines of not WAL'ing when the appropriate
conditions are met (table created in this transaction, etc, etc).
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-06 17:21:32 | Re: Functional dependency in GROUP BY through JOINs |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-12-06 16:55:39 | Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE) |