| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Document atthasmissing default optimization avoids verification table scan |
| Date: | 2022-03-28 13:29:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaY0+udh52Q-71FjmpyrY9w37oW+dZ0f-_nr7aMcRt-gA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 1:00 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So "undocumented concept" is just not accurate, and so I don't see it
> as a valid reason to reject the patch.
I mean, I think it's pretty accurate. The fact that you can point to a
few uses of the terms "table rewrite" and "table scan" in the ALTER
TABLE documentation doesn't prove that those terms are defined there
or systematically discussed and it seems pretty clear to me that they
are not. And I don't even know what we're arguing about here, because
elsewhere in the same email you agree that it is reasonable to
critique the patch on the basis of how well it fits into the
documentation and at least for me that is precisely this issue.
I think the bottom line here is that you're not prepared to accept as
valid any opinion to the effect that we shouldn't commit these
patches. But that remains my opinion.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-28 13:33:12 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-03-28 13:05:26 | Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables |