Re: patch - per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> My only objection to that is that if we're going to add attoptions
>> also, I'd like to get this committed first before I start working on
>> that, and we're running short on time.  If you can commit his patch in
>> the next day or two, then I am fine with rebasing mine afterwards, but
>> if it needs more work than that then I would prefer to commit mine so
>> I can move on.  Is that reasonable?
>
> Fair enough --- if I can't get it done today I will let you know and
> hold off.

OK. I just took a really fast look at that the bki patch and it looks
pretty nice, so I hope you're able to get it in. Of course, I'm biased
because it's based on earlier work of my own, but biased != wrong.
:-)

A lot more work will need to be done to escape the insanity that is
our current method of handling system catalogs, but this seems like a
good step in the right direction.

I also observe that it applies cleanly over my current spcoptions
branch, so the merge conflicts might be a non-issue.

...Robert