| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX |
| Date: | 2017-03-09 21:11:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=rjNs4Gs=8QPo=r8hEc_FM89K2R_TaJhBXS4W71VLLhg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I like to err on the side of the approach that requires fewer changes.
> That is, if the question is "does pg_restore need to treat this issue
> specially?" and the answer is unclear, I like to assume it probably
> doesn't until some contrary evidence emerges.
>
> I mean, sometimes it is clear that you are going to need special
> handling someplace, and then you have to do it. But I don't see that
> this is one of those cases, necessarily.
That's what I'll do, then.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-09 21:13:20 | Re: ICU integration |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-09 21:06:07 | Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash |