From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allowing ALTER TYPE to change storage strategy |
Date: | 2020-03-05 21:17:03 |
Message-ID: | 20200305211703.nxajetzvksjikwxc@development |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 02:52:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> FWIW I'm not suggesting you go and implement #1 or #2 for me, that'd be
>> up to me I guess. But I disagree there's no use case for it, and #3
>> makes this featuer useless for me.
>
>OK, then we need to do something else. Do you have ideas for other
>alternatives?
>
I don't have any other ideas, unfortunately. And I think if I had one,
it'd probably be some sort of ugly hack anyway :-/
>If not, we probably should bite the bullet and go for #1, since
>I have little doubt that we'll need that someday anyway.
>The trick will be to keep down the cache invalidation overhead...
>
Yeah, I agree #1 seems like the cleanest/best option. Are you worried
about the overhead due to the extra complexity, or overhead due to
cache getting invalidated for this particular reason?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksei Ivanov | 2020-03-05 21:23:21 | Re: Proposal: PqSendBuffer removal |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-05 21:10:55 | Re: Proposal: PqSendBuffer removal |