From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Hook for Selectivity Estimation in Query Planning |
Date: | 2025-03-05 18:50:52 |
Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TN2P+C9vvr700Usb6nJJz58edajkKN1hnz2XDvyow3K3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrei, Matthias,
> Could you explain why you think the Pluggable TOASTer proposal was similar?
> [...]
I merely pointed out that adding hooks without any particular value
for the Postgres users was criticized before, see for instance:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230206104917.sipa7nzue5lw2e6z%40alvherre.pgsql
One could argue - but wait, isn't TAM for instance just a bunch of
hooks in a nutshell? How do we distinguish a well-documented and more
or less stable API for the extension authors from a random hook put in
a convenient place? That's a good question. I don't have an answer to
it. This being said, the proposed patch doesn't strike me as a good or
documented API, or the one that is going to be stable in the long run.
> [...]
>
> Overall, I see that new hooks allow new [sometimes] open-source projects
> and startups to emerge - not sure about enterprises' benefits.
> Therefore, I'm not convinced by your current justification. Are there
> any technical objections?
There is no point in debating about good and evil or right and wrong.
The only important question is whether there will be a committer
willing to accept the proposed change considering its controversy.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Hunter | 2025-03-05 18:53:02 | Re: Should work_mem be stable for a prepared statement? |
Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-03-05 18:45:30 | track generic and custom plans in pg_stat_statements |