| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: what to revert |
| Date: | 2016-05-04 16:42:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20160504164239.24rkxuwdu5ebxr6p@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2016-05-04 13:35:02 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Honestly, I don't see any strong ground in which to base a revert threat
> for this feature.
It's datastructures are badly designed. But releasing it there's no
pressure to fix that. If this were an intrinsic cost - ok. But it's
not.
> It doesn't scale as well as we would like in the case
> where a high-level is fully stressed with a read-only load -- okay. But
> that's unlikely to be a case where this feature is put to work.
It'll be just the same in a read mostly workload, which is part of the
case for this feature.
> So I think accepting the promise that this feature would be improved
> in a future release to better support that case is good enough.
I've not heard any such promise.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-04 17:15:08 | Re: Naming of new tsvector functions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-04 16:35:02 | Re: what to revert |