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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
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
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


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