| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities? |
| Date: | 2016-07-25 19:34:44 |
| Message-ID: | 9606.1469475284@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On 07/25/2016 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew still hasn't shown a concrete
>> example of what he needs to do and why.
> I think that Andrew and other people who have commented on this thread
> made it pretty obvious why it is useful.
Both Andrew and Robert have asserted without proof that it'd be useful
to be able to get at some of that data. Given the lack of any supporting
evidence, it's impossible to know which data needs to be exposed, and
that's why I find their statements insufficient. "Emulate 9.5's pg_am
exactly" is not in the cards, and short of that I'd like to see some
concrete reasons why we do or do not need to expose particular bits of
data.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robbie Harwood | 2016-07-25 20:58:47 | Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-07-25 19:28:39 | Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities? |