Re: Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Pritam Baral <pritam(at)pritambaral(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses
Date: 2017-03-28 14:03:47
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/24/17 10:50 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Pritam,
> On 3/17/17 5:41 PM, Pritam Baral wrote:
>> So sorry. I'm attaching the correct version of the original with this,
>> in case you want to test the limited implementation, because I still
>> have to go through Tom's list of suggestions.
>> BTW, the patch is for applying on top of REL9_6_2, and while I
>> suspect it may work on master too, I haven't tested it since the
>> original submission (Feb 23).
>>> Also, I noticed that patch haven't regression tests. Some mention of
>>> this optimization in docs is also nice to have. > > ------ >
>>> Alexander Korotkov > Postgres Professional:
>>> > The Russian Postgres Company
> This thread has been idle for a week. Please respond and/or post a new
> patch by 2017-03-28 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be marked
> "Returned with Feedback".

This submission has been marked "Returned with Feedback". Please feel
free to resubmit to a future commitfest.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2017-03-28 14:17:10 Re: Monitoring roles patch
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2017-03-28 13:34:50 Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)