On 2014-08-15 13:33:20 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >it seems to make more sense to split -i into two. One to create the > >tables, and another to fill them. That'd allow to do manual stuff > >inbetween. > > Hmmm. This would mean much more changes than the pretty trivial patch I > submitted
FWIW, I find that patch really ugly. Adding the filler's with in a printf, after the actual DDL declaration. Without so much as a comment. Brr. >: more options (2 parts init + compatibility with the previous > case), splitting the "init" function, having a dependency and new error > cases to check (you must have the table to fill them), some options apply to > first part while other apply to second part, which would lead in any case to > a signicantly more complicated documentation... a lot of trouble for my use > case to answer Josh pertinent comments, and to be able to test the "tuple > size" factor easily. Moreover, I would reject it myself as too much trouble > for a small benefit. Well, it's something more generic, because it allows you do do more... > Feel free to reject the patch if you do not want it. I think that its > cost/benefit is reasonable (one small option, small code changes, some > benefit for people who want to measure performance in various cases). I personally think this isn't worth the price. But I'm just one guy. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
