Re: tableam vs. TOAST - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: tableam vs. TOAST
Date
Msg-id 20190905200720.z42zlooh7sf26ocp@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: tableam vs. TOAST  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: tableam vs. TOAST
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-09-05 15:27:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:10 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2019-09-05 13:42:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Done, thanks. Here's the rest again with the additional rename added
> > > to 0003 (formerly 0004). I think it's probably OK to go ahead with
> > > that stuff, too, but I'll wait a bit to see if anyone wants to raise
> > > more objections.
> >
> > Well, I still dislike making the toast chunk size configurable in a
> > halfhearted manner.
> 
> So, I'd be willing to look into that some more.  But how about if I
> commit the next patch in the series first?  I think this comment is
> really about the second patch in the series, "Allow TOAST tables to be
> implemented using table AMs other than heap," and it's fair to point
> out that, since that patch extends table AM, we're somewhat committed
> to it once we put it in.  But "Create an API for inserting and
> deleting rows in TOAST tables." is just refactoring, and I don't see
> what we gain from waiting to commit that part.

Yea, makes sense to me.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: tableam vs. TOAST
Next
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: PostgreSQL 12 Beta 4