| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
| Date: | 2010-11-24 06:06:17 |
| Message-ID: | 6371.1290578777@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think you (Robert) misunderstood dramatically what Pavel try to do.
> Pavel did an excellent optimization work for a specific point. This
> specific point looks crucial for me in the current behavior of
> PostgreSQL[1]. AFAIS Pavel didn't want to implement a genious syntax,
> but an optimization feature.
As near as I can tell, Pavel is bullheadedly insisting on adding new
syntax, not on the optimization aspect of it. I already pointed out
how he could get 100% of the performance benefit using the existing
syntax, but he doesn't appear to be willing to pursue that route.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2010-11-24 06:09:20 | Re: GiST seems to drop left-branch leaf tuples |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-11-24 06:02:11 | Re: Instrument checkpoint sync calls |