Re: ToDo List Item - System Table Index Clustering

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: saiken(at)quietlycompetent(dot)com, Simone Aiken <saiken(at)ulfheim(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ToDo List Item - System Table Index Clustering
Date: 2011-01-19 19:39:29
Message-ID: AANLkTik=EfPBjArm+b17VdWnr5TZMZvAK5CQNEXeWnbo@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Simone Aiken
>> <saiken(at)quietlycompetent(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Pages like this one have column comments for the system tables:
>>>
>>> http://www.psql.it/manuale/8.3/catalog-pg-attribute.html
>
>> Oh, I see.  I don't think we want to go there.  We'd need some kind of
>> system for keeping the two places in sync.
>
> I seem to recall some muttering about teaching genbki to extract such
> comments from the SGML sources or perhaps the C header files.  I tend to
> agree though that it would be a lot more work than it's worth.  And as
> you say, pg_description entries aren't free.
>
> Which brings up another point though.  I have a personal TODO item to
> make the comments for operator support functions more consistent:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/21407.1287157253@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Should we consider removing those comments altogether, instead?

I could go either way on that. Most of those comments are pretty
short, aren't they? How much storage are they really costing us?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-01-19 19:46:43 Re: estimating # of distinct values
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2011-01-19 19:31:02 REVIEW: patch: remove redundant code from pl_exec.c