From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, Dent John <denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods |
Date: | 2019-10-29 04:23:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFJiD=G=0rx3kFN+BT+vrCHG2VJkHNuVfCk1CjsW2=YHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alvaro,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2019-Oct-23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:16:25AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > IMO, parts of the patch that only refactors the existing code should
> > > be first in the list as it is easier to review, especially if it adds
> > > no new concepts. In this case, your patch to break StdRdOptions into
> > > more manageable chunks would be easier to understand if it built upon
> > > a simplified framework of parsing reloptions text arrays.
> >
> > Thanks for doing a split. This helps in proving the point that this
> > portion has independent value.
>
> Not a split, yes? AFAICS this code is nowhere in Nikolay's proposed
> patchset -- it seems completely new development by Amit. Am I wrong?
IIUC, Nikolay intended to write such a patch but only after getting
some consensus on breaking up StdRdOptions. I didn't look closely but
an idea similar to the patch I posted (really as a PoC) might have
been discussed couple of years ago, as Nikolay mentioned upthread:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/992/
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-10-29 04:31:20 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Previous Message | btfujiitkp | 2019-10-29 04:23:07 | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |