| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Separate block sampling functions |
| Date: | 2015-05-18 14:45:26 |
| Message-ID: | 5559FB06.9090809@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 05/15/2015 07:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 05/15/2015 06:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 15 May 2015 at 04:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
>> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
>>
>> The difference there was that that was specifically adding a new
>> feature
>> of value to FDWs. This is just drive-by breakage.
>>
>>
>> I think that comment is reasonable. I will continue with my commits
>> of tablesample, then return to see if we can improve/revert the API
>> breakage.
>>
>>
>
>
> OK, good, but I'm not going to accept Michael's pull request until the
> API is stable.
>
>
What is the current state of this? Are we sticking with what Tom
classified as drive-by breakage?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-18 14:53:51 | Re: pgsql: Separate block sampling functions |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2015-05-18 14:04:03 | pgsql: Check return values of sensitive system library calls. |