Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Anton" <anton200(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Date: 2007-10-30 05:54:02
Message-ID: 16595.1193723642@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> Sure - it's here:
>   http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/msg00381.html

Luke, this is not a patch, and I'm getting pretty dang tired of seeing
you refer to it as one.  What this is is a very-selective extract from
Greenplum proprietary code.  If you'd like us to think it is a patch,
you need to offer the source code to all the GP-specific functions that
are called in the quoted additions.

Hell, the diff is *against* GP-specific code --- it removes calls
to functions that we've never seen, eg here:

-    /* Use constant expr if available.  Will be at head of list. */
-    if (CdbPathkeyEqualsConstant(pathkey))

This is not a patch, and your statements that it's only a minor porting
matter to turn it into one are lie^H^H^Hnonsense.  Please lift the
skirts higher than the ankle region if you want us to get excited.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: rubenDate: 2007-10-30 08:20:24
Subject: High Availability and Load Balancing
Previous:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2007-10-30 05:46:22
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group