Re: Eliminating CREATE INDEX comparator TID tie-breaker overhead

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Eliminating CREATE INDEX comparator TID tie-breaker overhead
Date: 2015-07-23 18:44:15
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRJ2vQ0iDR0aoTWsq1u46HsM-AyPmw5maTo=TDQX+8cJg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If other people feel strongly about this issue, then they can weigh in
> and we'll see where we end up. If they don't, then there's no
> consensus to proceed with this, and we shouldn't *have* to spend a lot
> of time on it.

If no one weighs in after a few days, I'll mark the patch "rejected"
in the CF app.

> Also, I resent the implication that I wrote a deliberately inaccurate
> summary of your position. If it was inaccurate, it wasn't deliberate.
> More likely, we simply view the situation differently. Please assume
> good faith.

You wrote "Your conclusion is basically that it's OK to burden
everyone who comes along and does future development that may use the
sorting code differently from the way it's used now". If you'd like me
to assume good faith in these situations, maybe you should be more
careful about your choice of words. You statement was extremely broad,
unlike the very narrow technical issue under discussion.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2015-07-23 18:49:47 Re: Autonomous Transaction is back
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-07-23 18:39:04 Re: Autonomous Transaction is back