| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, jim(at)nasby(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify further no-work cases |
| Date: | 2011-01-27 01:12:53 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinX6uu0YBcDdPavFNLHrQQbgRK_3i96VUabtPqW@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> But how often do those really come up? And do you really save that
> much? The table still has to be locked against other users, so you're
> still down, and you're still doing all the reads and computation. I
> don't deny that saving the writes is worth something; I just don't agree
> that it's worth the development and maintenance effort that such a wart
> is going to cost us. User-exposed features are *expensive*.
I would think that text -> [something that's still a varlena but with
tighter validation] would be quite common.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-01-27 01:13:54 | Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify further no-work cases |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-27 01:11:35 | Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify further no-work cases |