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

Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Date: 2008-04-01 05:35:24
Message-ID: 20874.1207028124@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-jdbc
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If anyone squawks we could think about a
>> faster update ...

> That assumes that someone working on using the planner hooks will read 
> this thread - which might be reasonable - I guess they number of likely 
> users is fairly small. But if they might miss it then it would be best 
> to fix it ASAP, ISTM.

Well, it's not like we have never before changed internal APIs in a
minor update.  (There have been security-related cases where we gave
*zero* notice of such changes.)  Nor am I willing to surrender the
option to do so again.  If there's somebody out there with a real
problem with this change, they need to speak up.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-01 05:51:11
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-01 05:13:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection to PostgreSQL Using Certificate: Wrong Permissions on Private Key File

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-04-01 05:51:11
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-04-01 02:12:06
Subject: Re: How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work

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