| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_background contrib module proposal |
| Date: | 2016-12-21 04:04:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobth+2GPHRbG77FovK-i8Nk5=CEO9L9+N6kpc_5DTxkeg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9 December 2016 at 13:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> That might be good, because then we wouldn't have to maintain two
>> copies of the code.
>
> So why are there two things at all? Why is this being worked on as
> well as Peter's patch? What will that give us?
A feature that can be accessed without writing C code.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-12-21 04:14:46 | Faster methods for getting SPI results |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-21 04:03:13 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |