| From: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Pluggable TOAST |
| Date: | 2023-11-14 13:12:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAN-LCVOJX6RTrohKKx18mhusCncSQ4WpexbbKjEtYvjdWyOOnA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
Matthias, regarding your message above, I have a question to ask.
On typed TOAST implementations - we thought that TOAST method used
for storing data could depend not only on data type, but on the flow or
workload,
like out bytea appendable toaster which is much (hundreds of times) faster
on
update compared to regular procedure. That was one of ideas behind the
Pluggable TOAST - we can choose the most suitable TOAST implementation
available.
If we have a single TOAST entry point for data type - then we should have
some means to control it or choose a TOAST method suitable to our needs.
Or should not?
--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
The Russian Postgres Company
https://postgrespro.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-11-14 13:12:51 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-11-14 13:11:50 | Re: Adding facility for injection points (or probe points?) for more advanced tests |