| From: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Ziga <ziga(at)ljudmila(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Retail DDL |
| Date: | 2025-08-16 09:43:20 |
| Message-ID: | CALdSSPh4aLTkOiBuj7sPydsm3byjBtDnRDycYrjZ5tAmWt=egw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 at 10:08, I wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 23:30, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> > Builtin
> > functions are also likely to be faster.
>
> We are not actually aiming for speed here, aren’t we?
I want to clarify here: I do not think consuming limiter resources of
catalog OID for builtin functions is worth the benefit here.
>
> Overall, Im +1 on `pg_get_{objecttype}_ddl` or maybe
> `pg_show_{objecttype}_ddl` design.
After putting some more thought into it, maybe we can implement the
whole thing as contrib extension? This would be the most Postgres-y
way to me.
--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2025-08-16 11:53:41 | Re: DSA overflow in hash join |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Kumar Veldanda | 2025-08-16 09:34:02 | Re: Dead code with short varlenas in toast_save_datum() |