Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Date
Msg-id 20150806002753.GE13687@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug  5, 2015 at 10:58:00AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 10:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 1. Add the functions as a builtins.
> >    This is what the current patch does.  Simon seems to prefer this,
> >    because he wants the function to be always available in production;
> >    but I don't like this option because adding functions as builtins
> >    makes it impossible to move later to extensions.
> >    Bruce doesn't like this option either.
> 
> Why would we want to move them later to extensions?  Do you anticipate
> not needing them in the future?  If we don't need them in the future,
> why would they continue to exist at all?
> 
> I'm really not getting this. ----------------------------

This is why I suggested putting the new SQL function where it belongs
for consistency and then open a separate thread to discuss the future of
where we want diagnostic functions to be.  It is too complicated to talk
about both issues in the same thread.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: nodes/*funcs.c inconsistencies