From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Danil Anisimow <anisimow(dot)d(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs |
Date: | 2024-05-17 20:25:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZS++BBdyWxFv6k-UhzX=MGsqd8mu_80Z646-T=jYgW2g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:20 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> Regarding this particular change: the checkpointing hook seems more
> like a table AM feature, so I agree with you that we should have a good
> idea how a real table AM might use this, rather than only
> pg_stat_statements.
I would even be OK with a pg_stat_statements example that is fully
working and fully explained. I just don't want to have no example at
all. The original proposal has been changed twice because of
complaints that the hook wasn't quite useful enough, but I think that
only proves that v3 is closer to being useful than v1. If v1 is 40% of
the way to useful and v3 is 120% of the way to useful, wonderful! But
if v1 is 20% of the way to being useful and v3 is 60% of the way to
being useful, it's not time to commit anything yet. I don't know which
is the case, and I think if someone wants this to be committed, they
need to explain clearly why it's the first and not the second.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-05-17 20:27:47 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-05-17 20:20:19 | Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs |