>> Well, you'd have to start by demonstrating the benefit of it. The
>> advantage of query caches in proxies and clients is well-known, because you
>> can offload some of the work of the database onto other servers, this
>> increasing capacity. Adding a query cache to the database server would
>>
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Joshua Berkus wrote:
> Billy,
>
> > I've done a brief search of the postgresql mail archives, and I've
> > noticed a few projects for adding query caches to postgresql, (for
> > example, Masanori Yamazaki's query cache proposal for GSOC 2011),
>
> ... which was co
Joshua Berkus writes:
> If you want to do something radical and new, then come up with a way
> for a client to request and then reuse a complete query plan by
> passing it to the server.
[ raised eyebrow ] That seems like a complete nonstarter on two
different grounds: cache invalidation needs (
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On ons, 2012-03-07 at 17:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I said it was a reasonable alternative, not that it was the only one
>> we should consider. The behavior of .nrows() might be accidental,
>> but perhaps it is a preferable model to adopt.
> After pondering this for
Billy,
> I've done a brief search of the postgresql mail archives, and I've
> noticed a few projects for adding query caches to postgresql, (for
> example, Masanori Yamazaki's query cache proposal for GSOC 2011),
... which was completed, btw. Take a look at the current release of pgPool.
Are yo
Qi,
Yeah, I can see that. That's a sign that you had a good idea for a project,
actually: your idea is interesting enough that people want to debate it. Make
a proposal on Monday and our potential mentors will help you refine the idea.
- Original Message -
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 2
On ons, 2012-03-07 at 17:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On ons, 2012-03-07 at 16:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Still, it seems rather arbitrary to say that the row count property is
> >> the thing to test for that purpose and no other is. Why not return None
> >> for an
Hi again,
[...]
>
> However, your example is enough unlike the actual code that the
> conclusion you state following the word "clearly" isn't actually clear
> to me. According to latch.h, the correct method of using a latch is
> like this:
>
> * for (;;)
> * {
> * ResetLatch();
> *
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 03:02:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's even less clear about what the semantics are in multi-key
> cases. Right offhand I would say that multi-key cases are
> nonsensical and should be forbidden outright, because there is no
> way to figure out which collections of elemen
