Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=rjNs4Gs=8QPo=r8hEc_FM89K2R_TaJhBXS4W71VLLhg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like to err on the side of the approach that requires fewer changes.
> That is, if the question is "does pg_restore need to treat this issue
> specially?" and the answer is unclear, I like to assume it probably
> doesn't until some contrary evidence emerges.
>
> I mean, sometimes it is clear that you are going to need special
> handling someplace, and then you have to do it.  But I don't see that
> this is one of those cases, necessarily.

That's what I'll do, then.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ICU integration