Hi Andrew You wrote: > And indeed, given the specifics of the use > case you're outlining, it's as much a demonstration of that evaluation > as a repudiation of it.
Maybe my use cases seem to be a special case (to me and over a million users of OpenStreetMap it's not). Anyhow: That's why I'm investigating an FDW extension. > 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. Yours, S. 2013/11/19 Andrew Sullivan <a...@crankycanuck.ca> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:39:17AM +0100, Stefan Keller wrote: > > Referring to the application is something you can always say - but > > shouldn't prevent on enhancing Postgres. > > With respect, that sounds like a sideways version of, "You should > optimise for $usecase". You could be right, but I think the judgement > of the Postgres developers has generally been that special cases are > not the mainline case. And indeed, given the specifics of the use > case you're outlining, it's as much a demonstration of that evaluation > as a repudiation of it. > > 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. What you need is an argument that it > is generally useful. Otherwise, the right thing to do is get a > specialised tool (which might be a special optimisation of the > Postgres code). > > Best, > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@crankycanuck.ca > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
