Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)
Date: 2018-05-10 17:40:58
Message-ID: 20180510174057.lxvpwbgbbghz2zrm@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-05-10 12:18:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Next question is what to do with this. Do we want to sit on it till
> v12, or sneak it in now?

Is there a decent argument for sneaking it in? I don't really have an
opinion. I don't think it'd really be arguable that this'll make testing
meaningfully faster. OTOH, it's fresh in your mind (which can be said
about a lot of patches obviously).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-05-10 17:51:27 Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2018-05-10 17:38:41 Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?