| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_avd |
| Date: | 2003-02-19 15:11:29 |
| Message-ID: | 11255.1045667489@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Matthew T. O'Connor writes:
>> I think it's a question of, is this solution one that we want to keep
>> for a while, or do we want a different implementation of AVD, perhaps
>> something built into the backend that could take advantage of the FSM
>> also.
> To me it seems that this would be much better if kept inside the server.
I agree, it seems like a server-side implementation would be the only
credible way to go for a production-grade version of this feature.
But I don't see anything wrong with building a client-side prototype,
which is what pg_avd looks like from here. (Unless the client is
contorted by not being able to get at things it needs.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-19 15:12:51 | Re: postgres error reporting |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-19 15:00:29 | Re: postgres error reporting |