Re: proposal: integration bloat tables (indexes) to core

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: integration bloat tables (indexes) to core
Date: 2016-06-16 18:31:32
Message-ID: bb241e41-f4f6-f09a-032e-e8fc39677fc8@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6/13/16 12:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> At the same time, I'm pretty suspicious of putting stuff like this in
> core, because the expectations for cross-version compatibility go up
> by orders of magnitude as soon as we do that.

On a first go-round, I don't think we should add entire views, but
rather functions that serve specific purposes. For table bloat that
means a function that returns what the heap size should be based on
pg_stats. For locking, it means providing information about which PID is
blocking which PID. After that, most everything else is just window
dressing.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-06-16 18:32:07 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-06-16 18:19:44 Re: ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist