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 17:22:59
Message-ID: CADyhKSVMonY+EgJHGKWhkOEO=OsjQHt065YwzGFHTH_ck64ymQ@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:
>> 2013/11/12 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> There's no possible way you'll finish this for 9.4.
>
>> Yes, I understand it is not possible to submit whole of the patch until
>> CF3 deadline. So, I'd like to find out a way to implement it as an
>> extension using facilities being supported or to be enhanced on v9.4.
>
> Oh! Okay, I misunderstood the context --- you meant this as an example
> use-case for the custom plan feature, right? Makes more sense now.
>
> I'm still dubious that it'd actually be very useful in itself, but it
> seems reasonable as a test case to make sure that a set of hooks for
> custom plans are sufficient to do something useful with.
>
Yes. I intend to put most of this table-caching feature on the custom-scan
APIs set, even though it may take additional hooks due to its nature,
independent from planner and executor structure.

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?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-11-12 17:30:41 Re: Possible memory leak with SQL function?
Previous Message J Smith 2013-11-12 17:17:03 Re: Errors on missing pg_subtrans/ files with 9.3