From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c) |
Date: | 2015-11-11 20:29:44 |
Message-ID: | 20151111202944.GB27477@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-11-11 14:59:33 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't see this as being a particularly good idea. The same issue
> exists for FDWs, and we're just living with it in that case.
It's absolutely horrible there. I don't see why that's a justification
for much. To deal with the lack of extensible copy/out/readfuncs I've
just had to copy the entirety of readfuncs.c into an extension. Or you
build replacements for those (as e.g. postgres_fdw essentially has
done).
> If we do want to improve it, I'm not sure this is the way to go,
> either. I think there could be other designs where we focus on making
> the serialization and deserialization options better, rather than
> letting people tack stuff onto the struct.
Just better serialization doesn't actually help all that much. Being
able to conveniently access data directly, i.e. as fields in a struct,
makes code rather more readable. And in many cases more
efficient. Having to serialize internal datastructures unconditionally,
just so copyfuncs.c works if actually used, makes for a fair amount of
inefficiency (forced deserialization, even when not copying) and uglier
code.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-11 20:31:10 | Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-11 19:59:33 | Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c) |