From: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What's needed for cache-only table scan? |
Date: | 2013-11-12 19:19:30 |
Message-ID: | CADyhKSUN6m9VJ3jk1L1YrzKKVYfsuMkMoF+JPMTvKsj4zXOrnA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/11/12 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
>> So, are you thinking it is a feasible approach to focus on custom-scan
>> APIs during the upcoming CF3, then table-caching feature as use-case
>> of this APIs on CF4?
>
> Sure. If you work on this extension after CF3, and it reveals that the
> custom scan stuff needs some adjustments, there would be time to do that
> in CF4. The policy about what can be submitted in CF4 is that we don't
> want new major features that no one has seen before, not that you can't
> make fixes to previously submitted stuff. Something like a new hook
> in vacuum wouldn't be a "major feature", anyway.
>
Thanks for this clarification.
3 days are too short to write a patch, however, 2 month may be sufficient
to develop a feature on top of the scheme being discussed in the previous
comitfest.
Best regards,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2013-11-12 19:30:08 | writable FDWs / update targets confusion |
Previous Message | J Smith | 2013-11-12 18:45:01 | Re: Errors on missing pg_subtrans/ files with 9.3 |