| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tableam vs. TOAST |
| Date: | 2019-09-05 20:07:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20190905200720.z42zlooh7sf26ocp@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-09-05 15:27:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:10 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2019-09-05 13:42:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Done, thanks. Here's the rest again with the additional rename added
> > > to 0003 (formerly 0004). I think it's probably OK to go ahead with
> > > that stuff, too, but I'll wait a bit to see if anyone wants to raise
> > > more objections.
> >
> > Well, I still dislike making the toast chunk size configurable in a
> > halfhearted manner.
>
> So, I'd be willing to look into that some more. But how about if I
> commit the next patch in the series first? I think this comment is
> really about the second patch in the series, "Allow TOAST tables to be
> implemented using table AMs other than heap," and it's fair to point
> out that, since that patch extends table AM, we're somewhat committed
> to it once we put it in. But "Create an API for inserting and
> deleting rows in TOAST tables." is just refactoring, and I don't see
> what we gain from waiting to commit that part.
Yea, makes sense to me.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2019-09-05 20:08:11 | Re: ERROR: multixact X from before cutoff Y found to be still running |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-09-05 19:51:29 | Re: tableam vs. TOAST |