Re: Reduce pinning in btree indexes

On 18 March 2015 at 03:01, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3/16/15 11:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I am sure there are more sophisticated things to be done here, but I
>> guess my feeling is that time is a good way to go here for a first cut
>> - lots of people have suggested it, and there's clearly a use case for
>> it. If the setting turns out to be popular, we can fine-tune it more
>> once we've got some experience with it. But I'm nervous about trying
>> to to design something more complicated than that right now,
>> especially so late in the release cycle. We know that this setting,
>> with time-based units, will meet the needs of the customer for whom it
>> was developed, and that is a good-enough reason to think that time is
>> a reasonable metric for this, even if we eventually have others.
>
>
> +1. As you said, time is easy for people to understand, and I think it will
> handle a large chunk of the use cases.

If it wasn't clear, I had already said that my idea was for next
release, before Robert said that.

> I used to have this quote (or something close to it) on my whiteboard... I
> think it's appropriate here ;)
>
> "The perfect is the enemy of the good. -Simon Riggs"

Interesting to hear I was anybody's pinup ;-)

Not sure that is a saying of mine though, sounds more like Robert to me.

I do believe in something now, something better later. I'd call that
incremental benefit, as opposed to incremental development where the
benefit may not be realisable until the last point. Which is why I am
backing this patch for 9.5, even though the UI is less useful than I
think is eventually necessary.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training & Services