Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)
Date: 2014-04-04 11:13:45
Message-ID: 20140404111345.GA12345@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-04-04 12:56:55 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
>
> > On 04.04.2014, at 09:40, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure how much additional work is required to sort this out,
> > but to me it looks more realistic to target 9.5 than 9.4, so at this
> > point I tend to think that the patch ought to be marked as returned
> > with feedback.
>
> I think the patch is worthwhile, even without this additional
> optimization. In fact, If the optimization was part of the patch,
> there would probably be calls to factor it out, on the ground that the
> patch is already rather large.
>
> I don't see what bumping the whole thing to 9.5 buys, compared do
> applying what we have now, and optimizing in 9.5 further.

From my POV applying this patch can't be considered a very high priority
for 9.4x. It came *really* late to the game for a relatively complex
patch. A significant portion of the development only happened *after*
the start of the last commitfest.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-04-04 11:31:48 Allocations in critical section (was Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5))
Previous Message YAMAMOTO Takashi 2014-04-04 11:11:56 Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)