| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class |
| Date: | 2009-04-14 18:09:52 |
| Message-ID: | 49E48B20.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Making pg_class and pg_proc tables larger hurts run-time
performance,
> potentially. Making a separate table only slows down DDL
operations,
> which are much less frequent.
Copying the pg_class table, with oids and indexes, with and without
the addition of one timestamp column, the timestamp column caused the
copy to be about 11.3% larger; so I see your point.
I guess I didn't realize just how tight the pg_class table was.
Given all that, I'm going to say that from my perspective I don't
think the convenience of saving the information is worth the cost,
with either approach. I understand it might mean more to others.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2009-04-14 18:10:34 | Re: Regression failure on RHEL 4 w/ PostgreSQL 8.4 beta1 |
| Previous Message | - - | 2009-04-14 18:07:58 | Re: Unicode support |