Re: Changing SQL Inlining Behaviour (or...?)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydata(dot)com>
Cc: Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Changing SQL Inlining Behaviour (or...?)
Date: 2019-02-03 23:47:18
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I've posted some preliminary design ideas at
> and
> While there's a nontrivial amount of work needed to make that happen,
> I think it's doable, and it would lead to a significantly better
> solution than proceeding along the inlining path could do. My
> current feeling, therefore, is that we should reject this patch
> (or at least stick it in the deep freeze) and go work on that plan.

Now that the first of those threads has reached a feature-complete
state, I feel fairly comfortable in saying that we should drop the
idea of messing with the inlining heuristics (at least for the
particular end goal stated in this thread). So I'm going to go
close this CF entry as returned-with-feedback.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-02-03 23:56:28 Re: Ryu floating point output patch
Previous Message Edmund Horner 2019-02-03 23:39:05 Re: Tid scan improvements