Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Regina Obe <r(at)pcorp(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>
Subject: Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing
Date: 2019-03-18 14:34:46
Message-ID: CA+TgmobfSawTf-bSsEwb4Q+ddx0z=h0+Q5cSBWi34KoiB=0NCw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> >> I don't think that should stop us from breaking the API. You've got to
> >> do quite low level stuff to need pglz directly, in which case such an
> >> API change should be the least of your problems between major versions.
>
> > Agreed, this is across a major version and I don't think it's an issue
> > to break the API.
>
> Yeah. We don't normally hesitate to change internal APIs across major
> versions, as long as
> (a) the breakage will be obvious when recompiling an extension, and
> (b) it will be clear how to get the same behavior as before.
>
> Adding an argument qualifies on both counts. Sometimes, if a very
> large number of call sites would be affected, it makes sense to use
> a wrapper function so that we don't have to touch so many places;
> but that doesn't apply here.

+1. I think Paul had it right originally.

--
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 Robert Haas 2019-03-18 14:54:19 Re: Unduly short fuse in RequestCheckpoint
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2019-03-18 14:14:09 Re: [HACKERS] generated columns