On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 1:16 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Add support for polymorphic arguments and return types to languages other than PL/PgSQL > >> Add support for OUT and INOUT parameters to languages other than PL/PgSQL > > These actually seem like pretty interesting projects. > > Yeah. I'm surprised that nobody has gotten around to scratching > this itch yet. Okay, keeping these. On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 3:50 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2023-May-13, John Naylor wrote: > > Consider having single-page pruning update the visibility map > Hmm, I agree with removing the entry from the TODO list, but why is this > something we Do Not Want? If somebody shows up and do some analysis > that in a certain workload it is beneficial to do this, then I don't > think we should turn them down. Okay, removing but not adding to Do Not Want. On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:52 PM Matthias van de Meent < boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 14:27, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:18 AM Matthias van de Meent > > <boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Agreed; and that's why I'm not against removing the specific wording > > > of the item. This may not have been clearly described in my previous > > > mail, but I would instead like to see a TODO list item which covers > > > the need to improve the number of cases where we provide actionable > > > advice, and specifically those cases where there is not One Obvious > > > Issue (OOI;s like when getting close to wraparound; or close > > > checkpoints, or ...). > > > > My vote is for just removing the item, rather than putting it on the > > not wanted list. I don't think it's useful to put things as general as > > what you say here on the list. But putting this item in the not wanted > > section might imply that it's not an area we're looking to improve, > > which as you say, is false. > > That makes sense. Agreed. (This was for SET PERFORMANCE_TIPS) -- removing but not adding to Do Not Want. I've removed all else proposed to simply remove. Also removing "ECPG - Fix nested C comments" as done. As for this: On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 12:31 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Improve speed of tab completion > > -> Is this still a problem? > > I keep worrying that tab-complete.c will become so ungainly as to > present a human-scale performance problem. But there's been pretty > much zero complaints so far. Let's drop this one until some actual > issue emerges. Looking in the thread, the issue has to do with catalog queries, and in fact I must have fat-fingered copying the entry -- it should be "Improve speed of tab completion by using LIKE": http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20120821174847.gl1...@tamriel.snowman.net I've left it alone for now just in case. (I have yet to think about concrete revisions that seem needed, but I'll do that separately.) -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
