|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|To:||Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Mark Rofail <markm(dot)rofail(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 02/06/2018 11:15 AM, Mark Rofail wrote:
> > A new patch including all the fixes is ready.
> > Can you give the docs another look. I re-wrapped, re-indented and
> > changed all `Foreign Key Arrays` to `Array Element Foreign Keys` for
> > consistency.
> Looks good to me so set it to ready for committer. I still feel the type
> casting logic is a bit ugly but I am not sure if it can be improved much.
I gave this a quick look. I searched for the new GIN operator so that I
could brush it up for commit ahead of the rest -- only to find out that
it was eviscerated from the patch between v5 and v5.1. The explanation
for doing so is that the GIN code had some sort of bug that made it
crash; so the performance was measured to see if the GIN operator was
worth it, and the numbers are pretty confusing (the test don't seem
terribly exhaustive; some numbers go up, some go down, it doesn't appear
that the tests were run more than once for each case therefore the
numbers are pretty noisy) so the decision was to ditch all the GIN
support code anyway ..?? I didn't go any further since ISTM the GIN
operator prerequisite was there for good reasons, so we'll need to see
much more evidence that it's really unneeded before deciding to omit it.
At this point I'm not sure what to do with this patch. It needs a lot
of further work, for which I don't have time now, and given the pressure
we're under I think we should punt it to the next dev cycle.
Here's a rebased pgindented version. I renamed the regression test. I
didn't touch anything otherwise.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Dmitry Dolgov||2018-03-07 10:49:04||Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control|
|Previous Message||Rajkumar Raghuwanshi||2018-03-07 10:36:02||Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL|