Re: Path question

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:57:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2010/9/3 Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
>> > On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional
>> >> optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is
>> >> more general and extremely valuable in its own right.
>> >
>> > we have revised greg's wonderful work and ported the entire thing
>> > to head.  it solves the problem of merge_append. i did some
>> > testing earlier on today and it seems most important cases are
>> > working nicely.
>>
>> First, thanks for merging this up to HEAD.  I took a look through
>> this patch tonight, and the previous reviews thereof that I was able
>> to find, most notably Tom's detailed review on 2009-07-26.  I'm not
>> sure whether or not it's accidental that this didn't get added to
>> the CF,
>
> It's because I missed putting it in, and oversight I've corrected.  If
> we need to bounce it on to the next one, them's the breaks.
>
>> [points elided]
>>
>> 7. I think there's some basic code cleanup needed here, also: comment
>> formatting, variable naming, etc.
>
> Hans-Jürgen,
>
> Will you be able to get to this in the next couple of days?

I don't see a response to this which I assume means "no" - I'm going
to take a crack at fixing some of these issues.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company