Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range of object drops.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Hadi Moshayedi <hadi(at)citusdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range of object drops.
Date: 2017-11-30 03:33:01
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSFytTZrXgZQzqrduEZqcR91LcMgxOFZovHzcd-L6-aDQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> +1,
> FDW looks OK for prototyping pluggable storage, but it doesn't seem suitable
> for permanent implementation.
> BTW, Hadi, could you visit "Pluggable storage" thread and check how suitable
> upcoming pluggable storage API is for cstore?

I cannot make a clear opinion about this patch. Not changing the
situation, or changing it have both downsides and upsides. The
suggestion from Alexander is surely something to look at. I am bumping
this to next CF for now..
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-30 03:35:06 Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-11-30 03:32:14 Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries