On 20 June 2017 at 06:49, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-04-05 15:45:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2017-04-05 17:00:42 +1000, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote: >> > Regarding test patch, I have corrected the test suite after David Steele's >> > comments. >> > Also, I would like to mention that a companion patch was submitted by David >> > Steele up-thread. >> > >> > Attached the latest code and test patch. >> >> My impression is that this'll need a couple more rounds of review. Given >> that this'll establish API we'll pretty much ever going to be able to >> change/remove, I think it'd be a bad idea to rush this into v10. >> Therefore I propose moving this to the next CF. > > Craig, Vaishnavi, everyone else: Are you planning to continue to work on > this for v11? I'm willing to do another round, but only if it's > worthwhile.
I'm happy to work on review, and will try to make some time, but have to focus primarily on logical rep infrastructure. This patch was a proof of concept and fun hack for me and while I'm glad folks are interested, it's not something I can dedicate much time to. Especially with a 6-week-old baby now.... > FWIW, I still think this needs a pgbench or similar example integration, > so we can actually properly measure the benefits. I agree. I originally wanted to patch psql, but it's pretty intrusive. pgbench is likely a better target. Also pg_restore. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers