On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:59 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 4:07 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Yea, makes sense to me. > > OK, done. Here's the remaining patches again, with a slight update to > the renaming patch (now 0002). In the last version, I renamed > toast_insert_or_update to heap_toast_insert_or_update but did not > rename toast_delete to heap_toast_delete. Actually, I'm not seeing > any particular reason not to go ahead and push the renaming patch at > this point also.
And, hearing no objections, done. Here's the last patch back, rebased over that renaming. Although I think that Andres (and Tom) are probably right that there's room for improvement here, I currently don't see a way around the issues I wrote about in http://postgr.es/m/ca+tgmoa0zfcacpojcsspollgpztvfsyvcvb-uss8yokzmo5...@mail.gmail.com -- so not quite sure where to go next. Hopefully Andres or someone else will give me a quick whack with the cluebat if I'm missing something obvious. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
v7-0001-Allow-TOAST-tables-to-be-implemented-using-table-.patch
Description: Binary data
