| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |
| Date: | 2016-04-07 19:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | 12499.1460056899@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't know if you have time to look at this now --- my clock says it's
>> already Friday morning in New Zealand.
> FWIW the feature freeze rules state that it is allowed for a committer
> to request an extension to the feature freeze date for individual
> patches:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY56w5FOzeEo%2Bi48qehL%2BBsVTwy-Q1M0xjUhUCwgGW7-Q%40mail.gmail.com
> It seems to me that the restrictions laid out there are well met for
> this patch, if you only need a couple of additional days for this patch
> to get in.
Hmm ... the changes I'm thinking about here are certainly pretty
mechanical, if tedious. The main question mark I have hanging over
this patch is whether the planning-time penalty is too large --- but
that's something that can be tested with the patch as it stands.
Let me go investigate that a bit before requesting an extension.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-07 19:41:37 | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |
| Previous Message | Christian Ullrich | 2016-04-07 19:14:43 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #13854: SSPI authentication failure: wrong realm name used |