Re: Pluggable toaster

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Pluggable toaster
Date: 2022-06-17 14:33:24
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TOMPiRs-CZ=A9hyzxOyqHhKXxLD8qCF5+GJuLjQBzOX4A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi hackers,

> For a pluggable toaster - in previous patch set part 7 patch file contains invalid string.
> Fixup (v2 file should used instead of previous) patch:
> 7) 0007_fix_alignment_of_custom_toast_pointers.patch - fixes custom toast pointer's
> alignment required by bytea toaster by Nikita Glukhov;

I finished digesting the thread and the referred presentations per
Matthias (cc:'ed) suggestion in [1] discussion. Although the patchset
got a fair amount of push-back above, I prefer to stay open minded and
invest some of my time into this effort as a tester/reviewer during
the July CF. Even if the patchset will not make it entirely to the
core, some of its parts can be useful.

Unfortunately, I didn't manage to find something that can be applied
and tested. cfbot is currently not happy with the patchset.
0001_create_table_storage_v3.patch doesn't apply to the current
origin/master manually either:

```
error: patch failed: src/backend/parser/gram.y:2318
error: src/backend/parser/gram.y: patch does not apply
```

Any chance we can see a rebased patchset for the July CF?

[1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3626/

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-06-17 14:53:30 Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-06-17 14:33:08 Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size