From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 蔡松露(子嘉) <zijia(at)taobao(dot)com>, "Cai, Le" <le(dot)cai(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, 萧少聪(铁庵) <shaocong(dot)xsc(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |
Date: | 2020-01-05 20:06:03 |
Message-ID: | 20200105200603.wrb4beacwb57hhpk@development |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I think we need to do something with having two patches aiming to add
global temporary tables:
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2349/
[2] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2233/
As a reviewer I have no idea which of the threads to look at - certainly
not without reading both threads, which I doubt anyone will really do.
The reviews and discussions are somewhat intermixed between those two
threads, which makes it even more confusing.
I think we should agree on a minimal patch combining the necessary/good
bits from the various patches, and terminate one of the threads (i.e.
mark it as rejected or RWF). And we need to do that now, otherwise
there's about 0% chance of getting this into v13.
In general, I agree with the sentiment Rober expressed in [1] - the
patch needs to be as small as possible, not adding "nice to have"
features (like support for parallel queries - I very much doubt just
using shared instead of local buffers is enough to make it work.)
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-05 22:51:37 | Re: Removing pg_pltemplate and creating "trustable" extensions |
Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2020-01-05 19:26:06 | Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table |