Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Parallel query execution

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Parallel query execution
Date: 2013-01-16 13:38:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of the CF
> process.  

I concur.

> Quite aside from the lack of progress on closing CF3, major
> hackers who should know better are submitting significant new feature
> patches now, despite our agreement in Ottawa that nothing big would be
> accepted after CF3.  

For my small part, it wasn't my intent to drop a contentious patch at
the end.  I had felt it was pretty minor and relatively simple.  My
arguments regarding the popen patch were simply that it didn't address
one of the use-cases that I was hoping to.

I'll hold off on working on the compressed transport for now in favor of
doing reviews and trying to help get 9.3 wrapped up.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2013-01-16 13:42:29
Subject: Re: Parallel query execution
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2013-01-16 13:33:54
Subject: Re: Parallel query execution

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group