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

Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal

From: darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com (Darren King)
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal
Date: 1998-03-27 15:06:45
Message-ID: 9803271506.AA81438@ceodev (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > If any restructuring happens which removes, or makes optional, some of
> > the fundamental types, it should be accomplished so that the types can
> > be added in transparently, from a single set of source code, during
> > build time or after. OIDs would have to be assigned, presumably, and the
> > hardcoding of the function lookups for builtin types must somehow be
> > done incrementally. Probably needs more than this to be done right, and
> > without careful planning and implementation we will be taking a big step
> > backwards.
> 
> Exactly. Right now modules get installed by building the .so files and
> then creating all the types, functions, rules, tables, indexes etc. This
> is a bit more complicated than the Linux kernal 'insmod' operation. We could
> easily make the situation worse through careless "whacking".

Geez, Louise.  What I'm proposing will _SHOWCASE_ the extensibility. I'm not
looking to remove it and hardcode everything.

> > Seems to me that Postgres' niche is at the high end of size and
> > capability, not at the lightweight end competing for design wins against
> > systems which don't even have transactions.
> 
> And, there are already a couple of perfectly good 'toy' database systems.
> What is the point of having another one? Postgres should move toward
> becoming an "industrial strength" solution.

Making some of the _mostly_unused_ data types loadable instead of always
compiled in will NOT make postgres into a 'toy'.  Does "industrial strength"
imply having every possible data type compiled in?  Regardless of use?

I think the opposite is true. Puttining some of these extra types into modules
will show people the greatest feature that separates us from the 'toy's.

I realize there might not be a performance hit _now_, but if someone doesn't
start this "loadable module" initiative, every Tom, Dick and Harry will want
their types in the backend and eventually there _will_ be a performance hit.
Then the problem would be big enough to be a major chore to convert the many,
many types to loadable instead of only doing a couple now.

I'm not trying to cry "Wolf" or proposing to do this to just push around some
code.  I really think there are benefits to it, if not now, in the future.

And I know there are other areas that are broken or could be written better.
We all do what we can...I'm not real familiar with the workings of the cache,
indices, etc., but working on AIX has given me a great understanding of how
to make/load modules.

There, my spleen feels _much_ better now. :)

darrenk



Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 1998-03-27 15:52:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal
Previous:From: Ulrich VossDate: 1998-03-27 10:34:15
Subject: Reminder: Indices are not used

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