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
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 |