On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkeller@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any evidence that the Postgres developers ignore > useful optimisations. What you're arguing is that the optimisation > you have in mind isn't covered.
No; my point is that I - and others like Stonebraker, Oracle and SAP etc. - see room for optimization because assumptions about HW changed. To me, that should be enough evidence to start thinking about enhancements.
You must not read the -hackers list often enough, there are regularly long discussions about changing settings and adding features to take into account new hardware capabilities.
If you feel so strongly that the core developers are not scratching your itch, donate some code or money to fund they feature you feel are missing.
I usually discuss things - with core devs and devs and others - before I code.
And coding was what's obviously needed regarding the file_fixed_length_record_fdw.
I'm reading -hackers often and don't get a single valuable hit when searching for "in-memory" in postgres-* lists.
