| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: patch: fix performance problems with repated decomprimation of varlena values in plpgsql |
| Date: | 2011-02-08 16:38:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20110208163840.GA358@tornado.gateway.2wire.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 10:24:03AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, Pavel's subsequent reply suggested that he didn't test exactly
> this thing, so maybe there's hope.
No hope on that basis, no.
> Or maybe not. If Tom thought one branch inside exec_eval_datum() was
> going to be too expensive, four isn't going to be better.
He was commenting on a proposal equivalent to yours. You might want to reread
this thread in its entirety; we're coming full circle.
> But I think we're out of time to work on this for this cycle. Even if
> my latest idea is brilliant (and it may not be), we still have to test
> it in a variety of cases and get consensus on it, which seems like
> more than we can manage right now. I think it's time to mark this one
> Returned with Feedback, or perhaps Rejected would be more accurate in
> this instance.
It's not as if this patch raised complex questions that folks need more time to
digest. For a patch this small and simple, we minimally owe Pavel a direct
answer about its rejection.
Thanks,
nm
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-08 16:53:56 | Extensions versus pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-08 16:36:40 | Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 |