| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bootstrap DATA is a pita |
| Date: | 2015-03-04 13:47:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYGE-XGKuJQFWVWVQ0ch=oeetpB1nkeqUc-SFfC4CWX+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Even this promises to vastly increase the number of lines in the file,
>> and make it harder to compare entries by grepping out some common
>> substring. I agree that the current format is a pain in the tail, but
>> pg_proc.h is >5k lines already. I don't want it to be 100k lines
>> instead.
>
> Do you have a better suggestion? Sure it'll be a long file, but it still
> seems vastly superiour to what we have now.
Not really. What had occurred to me is to try to improve the format
of the DATA lines (e.g. by allowing names to be used instead of OIDs)
but that wouldn't allow defaulted fields to be omitted, which is
certainly a big win. I wonder whether some home-grown single-line
format might be better than using a pre-existing format, but I'm not
too sure it would.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-04 13:54:34 | Re: Bootstrap DATA is a pita |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2015-03-04 13:33:38 | Re: POLA violation with \c service= |