From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Make printtup a bit faster |
Date: | 2024-09-11 01:18:52 |
Message-ID: | 3727999.1726017532@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> writes:
> Just to be clearer, I'd like work on the out function only due to my
> internal assignment. (Since David planned it for PG18, so it is better
> say things clearer eariler). I'd put parts of out(print) function
> refactor in the next 2 days. I think it deserves a double check before
> working on *all* the out function.
Well, sure. You *cannot* write a patch that breaks existing output
functions. Not at the start, and not at the end either. You
should focus on writing the infrastructure and, for starters,
converting just a few output functions as a demonstration. If
that gets accepted then you can work on converting other output
functions a few at a time. But they'll never all be done, because
we can't realistically force extensions to convert.
There are lots of examples of similar incremental conversions in our
project's history. I think the most recent example is the "soft error
handling" work (d9f7f5d32, ccff2d20e, and many follow-on patches).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-09-11 01:29:03 | Re: Disallow altering invalidated replication slots |
Previous Message | jian he | 2024-09-11 01:11:47 | Re: not null constraints, again |