Re: Any reasons to not move pgstattuple to core? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Any reasons to not move pgstattuple to core?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYkK5AOfa1HxeYOpCczch5mUnAQhian7Wm2cBH1P=aVog@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Any reasons to not move pgstattuple to core?  (Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Any reasons to not move pgstattuple to core?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Konoplev <gray.ru@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my practice I quite often face the problem of bloated tables. I
> usually use pgstattuple to perform investigations. I also create a
> tool that uses UPDATEs based way to smoothly remove bloat
> (https://github.com/grayhemp/pgtoolkit), and it partially depends on
> pgstatuple too. To be more precise it gets much more effective with
> pgstattuple.
>
> Sometimes its installation leads to a headache, because it requires an
> approve from security and admins, it also a problem when I have a
> read-only access or no access to the database at all (eg. when
> consulting somebody by IM or phone). I think I am not the only person
> who faced these nuances.

Well, this is a general problem with any extension - somebody might
want it on a system on which the admin is unable or unwilling to
install it.  But we can't put every possible extension in core.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Next
From: Kevin Hale Boyes
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add DISCARD SEQUENCES command.