Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE359FB9CE for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:43:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76703-05-3 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:43:28 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from lightning.he.net (lightning.he.net [64.62.240.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91C2F9FBA22 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:43:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from dino-1.misuse.org ([68.120.198.62]) by lightning.he.net for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:43:22 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:43:14 -0800 To: Peter Eisentraut From: Steve Midgley Subject: Re: GiST index question: performance Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <200703061001.27552.peter_e@gmx.net> References: <20070305191920.4F6639FB214@postgresql.org> <20070305213005.E6BEC9FB265@postgresql.org> <200703061001.27552.peter_e@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20070306174325.91C2F9FBA22@postgresql.org> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.412 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200703/54 X-Sequence-Number: 27692 Hi Peter, :) All my Pg code is written via (or handed to) an abstraction layer, and I actually write no functions or stored procedures at all. I write using Rails, so in this case it's a Ruby library called ActiveRecord which has a Postgres module that allows me to talk via "ActiveRecord-speak" or via direct Postgres sql commands. (For example, AR has no idea how to create a GiST index, so I issue that DDL statement manually using the special syntax - also AR is not always so smart about SQL queries so tricky ones I write by hand). Maybe I misunderstand Q3C completely but it looks like C code that has to be installed into the Postgres server itself - not a series of SQL functions that can implemented on an unmodified server. I think my ISP is fine with anything that gets installed via user-level privileges. Anything that requires root and/or anything that involves binary code they are more cautious about. To be fair, I'm cautious about the same things, but given Oleg's reputation and contributions to Pg, I wouldn't be so concerned about Q3C specifically. Am I ignorant of something fundamental in this conversation? I really do appreciate any education or insight here. Are C code "patches" or functions more of a risk to server stability/reliability than higher level code? Or am I speaking gibberish? Thanks, Steve At 01:01 AM 3/6/2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Steve Midgley wrote: > > my ISP that manages my Pg SQL server is (in my interests) > > concerned about installing anything non-standard (read: unstable) > > onto their server. I was able to get them to install your TSearch2 > > b/c it's been proven many times, but I'm hesitant to even bring up > > Q3C since it's less widely deployed. > >How do you manage to get your own code installed under that theory? > >-- >Peter Eisentraut >http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/