Hi Shubham, > > > 8272749e added a few more arguments to CastCreate(). Here is the rebased > > > patch. > > > > After merging afbfc029 [1] the patch needed a rebase. PFA v10. > > > > The patch is still in a PoC state and this is exactly why comments and > > suggestions from the community are most welcome! Particularly I would > > like to know: > > > > 1. Would you call it a wanted feature considering the existence of > > Pluggable TOASTer patchset which (besides other things) tries to > > introduce type-aware TOASTers for EXTERNAL attributes? I know what > > Simon's [2] and Nikita's latest answers were, and I know my personal > > opinion on this [3][4], but I would like to hear from the rest of the > > community. > > > > 2. How should we make sure a dictionary will not consume all the > > available memory? Limiting the amount of dictionary entries to pow(2, > > 16) and having dictionary versions seems to work OK for ZSON. However > > it was pointed out that this may be an unwanted limitation for the > > in-core implementation. > > > > [1]: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=c727f511;hp=afbfc02983f86c4d71825efa6befd547fe81a926 > > [2]: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANbhV-HpCF852WcZuU0wyh1jMU4p6XLbV6rCRkZpnpeKQ9OenQ%40mail.gmail.com > > [3]: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJ7c6TN-N3%3DPSykmOjmW1EAf9YyyHFDHEznX-5VORsWUvVN-5w%40mail.gmail.com > > [4]: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJ7c6TO2XTTk3cu5w6ePHfhYQkoNpw7u1jeqHf%3DGwn%2BoWci8eA%40mail.gmail.com > > I tried to apply the patch but it is failing at the Head. It is giving > the following error:
Yes it does for a while now. Until we reach any agreement regarding questions (1) and (2) personally I don't see the point in submitting rebased patches. We can continue the discussion but mark the CF entry as RwF for now it will be helpful. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
