| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
| Date: | 2017-01-31 22:21:28 |
| Message-ID: | 32115.1485901288@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Hm, sorry for missing this earlier. I think CatalogUpdateIndexes() is
> fairly widely used in extensions - it seems like a pretty harsh change
> to not leave some backward compatibility layer in place.
If an extension is doing that, it is probably constructing tuples to put
into the catalog, which means it'd be equally (and much more quietly)
broken by any change to the catalog's schema. We've never considered
such an argument as a reason not to change catalog schemas, though.
In short, I've got mighty little sympathy for that argument.
(I'm a little more concerned by Alvaro's apparent position that WARM
is a done deal; I didn't think so. This particular change seems like
good cleanup anyhow, however.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-31 22:22:49 | Re: Parallel Index Scans |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-31 22:13:26 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |