Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Aleksandr Parfenov <asp437(at)gmail(dot)com>, a(dot)bykov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation
Date: 2019-02-18 00:20:25
Message-ID: 12717.1550449225@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Given this I think the appropriate state of the CF entry would have been
> waiting-for-author, not needs review. Or alternatively
> returned-with-feedback or rejected. I'm a bit confused as to why the
> patch was moved to the next CF twice?

We have this review from Antonin, and mine in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2906.1542395026%40sss.pgh.pa.us
and there's the cfbot report that the patch doesn't even apply anymore.

The dummy-relation stuff I referred to has now been merged, so there's
really no good reason not to revise the patch along that line.

I'm going to go set this CF entry to waiting-for-author, but unless
a rewritten patch appears soon, I think we should close it
returned-with-feedback. I think the idea is potentially good, but
as I said in my review, I don't like this implementation; it has the
potential to be a net loss in some cases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2019-02-18 00:24:50 Re: REL_11_STABLE: dsm.c - cannot unpin a segment that is not pinned
Previous Message James Sewell 2019-02-18 00:19:01 Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound