From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench \for or similar loop |
Date: | 2011-04-19 17:22:54 |
Message-ID: | 5882.1303233774@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar abr 19 13:33:27 -0300 2011:
>> Well, I'm all good with that, too, but am not fired up about either
>> one to implement it myself. So I think it's going to come down to
>> what the person doing the work feels most strongly about.
> I'm not at all fired up about stored procedures. The \for pgbench
> feature I'm proposing is 2 orders of magnitude less code than that.
I think what that really translates to is "I don't want to bother doing
the careful design work that Robert talked about". -1 for that approach.
I generally feel that such a feature would be better off done
server-side --- after all, there's more clients in the world than psql
and pgbench, and not all of them could use a C library even if we had
one. But in either case the coding work is going to be dwarfed by the
design work, if it's done right and not just the-first-hack-that-
comes-to-mind.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-04-19 17:28:17 | Re: REINDEX vs broken HOT chains, redux |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-19 17:12:46 | Re: REINDEX vs broken HOT chains, redux |