| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Amit Langote' <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |
| Date: | 2019-01-30 03:25:53 |
| Message-ID: | 201901300325.ptdcgkb5kta5@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jan-30, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> Why I did these tests is that I wanted to confirm that even if we
> apply each patch one by one, there's no performance problem. Because
> patches are quite large, I just felt it might be difficult to commit
> these patches all at once and I thought committing patch one by one
> would be another option to commit these patches. I don't know there is
> the rule in the community how patches should be committed, and if
> there, my thoughts above may be bad.
There are no absolute rules, but if I was committing it, I would
certainly commit each separately, mostly because reviewing the whole
series at once looks daunting ... and given the proposed commit
messages, I'd guess that writing a combined commit message would also be
very difficult.
So thanks for doing these tests.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-01-30 03:33:32 | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-01-30 03:13:14 | Re: dsa_allocate() faliure |