|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Make executor's Range Table an array instead of a List|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2018/09/04 17:14, David Rowley wrote:
> On 4 September 2018 at 19:31, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2018/08/24 7:22, David Rowley wrote:
>>> On 24 August 2018 at 02:26, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> One of the patches I sent last week does the same thing, among a
>>>> couple of other things with regard to handling relations in the
>>>> executor. On a cursory look at the patch, your take of it looks
>>>> better than mine. Will test tomorrow. Here is a link to my email:
>>>> 4th of my patches implements the array'fication of executor's range table.
>>> Sorry, didn't realise. I'll withdraw this and review yours during the
>>> upcoming 'fest.
>> Since your patch implemented the idea in a better manner, I'm thinking I
>> should merge it with mine. Is that okay with you?
> Feel free to do that.
Okay, will do.
> I've not yet looked at your patch. I was
> planning on looking at your partition planning performance
> improvements patches first.
|Next Message||Amit Langote||2018-09-04 08:53:11||Re: executor relation handling|
|Previous Message||Masahiko Sawada||2018-09-04 08:16:09||Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -r option)|