Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations

From: Sutou Kouhei <kou(at)clear-code(dot)com>
To: kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com
Cc: zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations
Date: 2023-12-09 20:44:07
Message-ID: 20231210.054407.1987293623700655053.kou@clear-code.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Thanks for reviewing our latest patch!

In
<TY3PR01MB9889C9234CD220A3A7075F0DF589A(at)TY3PR01MB9889(dot)jpnprd01(dot)prod(dot)outlook(dot)com>
"RE: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations" on Sat, 9 Dec 2023 02:43:49 +0000,
"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:

> (I remember that this theme was talked at Japan PostgreSQL conference)

Yes. I should have talked to you more at the conference...
I will do it next time!

Can we discuss how to proceed this improvement?

There are 2 approaches for it:

1. Do the followings concurrently:
a. Implementing small changes that got a consensus and
merge them step-by-step
(e.g. We got a consensus that we need to extract the
current format related routines.)
b. Discuss design

(v1-v3 patches use this approach.)

2. Implement one (large) complete patch set with design
discussion and merge it

(v4- patches use this approach.)

Which approach is preferred? (Or should we choose another
approach?)

I thought that 1. is preferred because it will reduce review
cost. So I chose 1.

If 2. is preferred, I'll use 2. (I'll add more changes to
the latest patch.)

Thanks,
--
kou

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sutou Kouhei 2023-12-09 20:54:56 Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-12-09 19:18:15 Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?