Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans
Date: 2005-02-28 00:22:26
Message-ID: 42226442.1080206@samurai.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2005-02-28 02:29:16
Subject: Re: SQL99 Hierarchical queries
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2005-02-27 23:30:53
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Some download statistics

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Simone BrunozziDate: 2005-02-28 10:34:04
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-02-27 20:33:31
Subject: Re: Development Plans

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group