Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE)

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE)
Date: 2012-12-06 17:02:53
Message-ID: 20121206170253.GU5162@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> It's not a bug. Requesting a useful, but not critical optimisation is
> just a hint. The preconditions are not easy to understand, so I see no
> reason to punish people that misunderstand, or cause programs to fail
> in ways that need detailed understanding to make them work again.

I tend to agree with Andres on this one. This feels a bit like
accepting a command but then not actually following-through on it
if it turns out we can't actually do it. If it's truely an optimization
(and I suspect my other email/question might provide insight into that),
then it should be something we can 'just do' without needing to be asked
to do it, along the same lines of not WAL'ing when the appropriate
conditions are met (table created in this transaction, etc, etc).

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-12-06 17:21:32 Re: Functional dependency in GROUP BY through JOINs
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2012-12-06 16:55:39 Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE)