| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Status of the table access method work |
| Date: | 2019-04-17 20:37:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+q6zcXFkJpMbC3F4rtFZKSz7Geh89vN3Q=_oqoTthsO9BvV0g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:25 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> I assume you're aware, but it's probably not going to be applied for 12...
Sure, the patch was mostly to express more clearly what I was thinking about :)
> I think most of the read-only stuff just needs to be non-optional, and most
> of the DML stuff needs to be optional.
> On the executor side it'd probably be good to make the sample scan optional
> too, but then we also need to check for that during parse-analysis. In
> contast to bitmap scans there's no alternative way to execute them.
Yeah, makes sense.
> bulk insert already is optional...
Oh, haven't noticed.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-04-17 21:20:03 | Re: block-level incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-04-17 20:24:55 | Re: Status of the table access method work |