RE: speeding up planning with partitions

From: "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 'Amit Langote' <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: speeding up planning with partitions
Date: 2019-01-30 04:23:13
Message-ID: 0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A5125CEB4@g01jpexmbkw24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jan-30, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
>
> > Why I did these tests is that I wanted to confirm that even if we
> > apply each patch one by one, there's no performance problem. Because
> > patches are quite large, I just felt it might be difficult to commit
> > these patches all at once and I thought committing patch one by one
> > would be another option to commit these patches. I don't know there
> is
> > the rule in the community how patches should be committed, and if
> > there, my thoughts above may be bad.
>
> There are no absolute rules, but if I was committing it, I would certainly
> commit each separately, mostly because reviewing the whole series at once
> looks daunting ... and given the proposed commit messages, I'd guess that
> writing a combined commit message would also be very difficult.

Ah, I see.

> So thanks for doing these tests.

I'm glad to hear that!

Thanks
--
Yoshikazu Imai

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2019-01-30 04:34:00 Re: jsonpath
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2019-01-30 03:48:57 Re: ALTER SESSION