Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size
Date: 2000-02-28 09:10:59
Message-ID: 200002280911.EAA20843@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > > > If you could keep the labels just for EXPLAIN, go for it.
> > >
> > > Not right now, put it onto TODO for after 7.0.
> >
> > But we just required initdb for lztext. If we need another initdb
> > later, maybe we should do it?
>
> LZTEXT was a fairly limited change, tested out before and
> just reapplied. This time you ask for mucking with the family
> of node-print and -read functions. Even if it's a limited
> area of code affected, I don't feel comfortable doing it now.

OK. Added to TODO.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-02-28 09:11:51 Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-02-28 08:51:50 Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?