| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
| Date: | 2017-12-01 19:20:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYGvNV7GqKLLCYcdFEhiANHA_mXxtf_EB=Pd--y14sMQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> It has very little impact on this patch, as it has nothing to do with
> columnar storage. That is, each value is compressed independently.
I understand that this patch is not about columnar storage, but I
think the idea that we may want to operate on the compressed data
directly is not only applicable to that case.
> I agree with these thoughts in general, but I'm not quite sure what is
> your conclusion regarding the patch.
I have not reached one. Sometimes I like to discuss problems before
deciding what I think. :-)
It does seem to me that the patch may be aiming at a relatively narrow
target in a fairly large problem space, but I don't know whether to
label that as short-sightedness or prudent incrementalism.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-01 19:38:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-01 19:11:31 | Re: Would a BGW need shmem_access or database_connection to enumerate databases? |