From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions |
Date: | 2016-02-13 23:19:01 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSXg=o7ek_O8+sBnVD1HPPvKLN2bYSVVag28OuTmvJe_w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> The two features are highly intermix, so it can only be dependent patches,
> first to add a function infrastructure and probably some support for doubles
> altough it would not be used, then to add doubles & their functions.
>
> A real pain is the documentation, because it means writing a documentation
> with only integer functions, then overwriting it with doubles. This is dumb
> work, really, for the sake of "a cleaner git history", the beauty of it no
> one will ever contemplate...
FWIW, I care a lot about splitting as much as possible patches where
it is possible to have a clean history. So I would be fine to do a
portion of the legwork and extract from this patch something smaller
that adds only functions as a first step, with the minimum set of
functions I mentioned upthread. Robert, Alvaro, Fabien, does that
sound fine to you?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-02-14 00:03:43 | Re: Bug in StartupSUBTRANS |
Previous Message | Christian Ullrich | 2016-02-13 22:09:28 | Re: Crash with old Windows on new CPU |