| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: contrib/pg_freespacemap |
| Date: | 2009-08-08 19:55:28 |
| Message-ID: | 4A7DD830.8000408@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/8/09 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
>>> contrib to core?
>> Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition doesn't
>> leave me feeling that it's more than a low-level hacker's tool.
>
> No specific reason. I was just wondering because I saw an old message
> about it. Maybe we just don't need it.
Given that the FSM is now auto-managing, is there any reason to have
this tool at all?
Seems like it should get killed off.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-08 20:00:26 | Re: contrib/pg_freespacemap |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-08 19:54:39 | Re: [PATCH] 2PC state files on shared memory |