| From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable toaster |
| Date: | 2023-02-07 10:38:20 |
| Message-ID: | CALT9ZEEdU5nuyVu1MhB=nRXtSk4CxH7pE7GTv0uwskXwK-MtgA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, hackers!
Maybe I've read the thread too superficially, but for me, it seems
like more of a discussion on what TOAST should NOT be. Maybe someone
more in the topic could explain what is the consensus on what we
require and what we like to to have in a new TOAST?
For me, a good toast should be chunk-updatable, so that we don't need
to rewrite the whole TOAST and WAL-replicate the whole thing at every
small attribute modification. But obviously, it's just another
opinion.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2023-02-07 10:42:37 | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible |
| Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2023-02-07 10:36:48 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |