Re: What's needed for cache-only table scan?

From: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: What's needed for cache-only table scan?
Date: 2013-11-12 19:19:30
Message-ID: CADyhKSUN6m9VJ3jk1L1YrzKKVYfsuMkMoF+JPMTvKsj4zXOrnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2013/11/12 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
>> So, are you thinking it is a feasible approach to focus on custom-scan
>> APIs during the upcoming CF3, then table-caching feature as use-case
>> of this APIs on CF4?
>
> Sure. If you work on this extension after CF3, and it reveals that the
> custom scan stuff needs some adjustments, there would be time to do that
> in CF4. The policy about what can be submitted in CF4 is that we don't
> want new major features that no one has seen before, not that you can't
> make fixes to previously submitted stuff. Something like a new hook
> in vacuum wouldn't be a "major feature", anyway.
>
Thanks for this clarification.
3 days are too short to write a patch, however, 2 month may be sufficient
to develop a feature on top of the scheme being discussed in the previous
comitfest.

Best regards,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2013-11-12 19:30:08 writable FDWs / update targets confusion
Previous Message J Smith 2013-11-12 18:45:01 Re: Errors on missing pg_subtrans/ files with 9.3