| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tableam vs. TOAST |
| Date: | 2019-09-05 19:27:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZtO-4udt7LSpGutB9bTb_xrpmvG5d5CSw_ZRE-R93cSA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:10 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2019-09-05 13:42:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Done, thanks. Here's the rest again with the additional rename added
> > to 0003 (formerly 0004). I think it's probably OK to go ahead with
> > that stuff, too, but I'll wait a bit to see if anyone wants to raise
> > more objections.
>
> Well, I still dislike making the toast chunk size configurable in a
> halfhearted manner.
So, I'd be willing to look into that some more. But how about if I
commit the next patch in the series first? I think this comment is
really about the second patch in the series, "Allow TOAST tables to be
implemented using table AMs other than heap," and it's fair to point
out that, since that patch extends table AM, we're somewhat committed
to it once we put it in. But "Create an API for inserting and
deleting rows in TOAST tables." is just refactoring, and I don't see
what we gain from waiting to commit that part.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yuli Khodorkovskiy | 2019-09-05 19:36:02 | Re: add a MAC check for TRUNCATE |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2019-09-05 19:20:06 | Re: Index Skip Scan |