Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:27, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

>
> > Sure, but we have the choice between something that benefits just a few
> > cases or one that benefits more widely.
> >
> > If we all only work on the narrow use cases that are right in front of us
> > at the present moment then we would not have come this far. I'm sure many
> > GIS applications also store JSONB data, so you would be helping the
> > performance of the whole app, even if there isn't much JSON in PostGIS.
>
> -1, I think this is blowing up the complexity of a already useful patch,
> even though there's no increase in complexity due to the patch proposed
> here. I totally get wanting incremental decompression for jsonb, but I
> don't see why Paul should be held hostage for that.
>

Not sure I agree with your emotive language. Review comments != holding
hostages.

If we add one set of code now and need to add another different one later,
we will have 2 sets of code that do similar things.

I'm surprised to hear you think that is a good thing.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services