Dear Bricklen and Andrew 2013/11/19 bricklen <brick...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkel...@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. So, may we come back on track?
