Re: Gather Merge

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Gather Merge
Date: 2017-03-14 13:56:33
Message-ID: 27302.1489499793@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Cool, thanks for the review. I'm not quite confident that we've found
> all of the bugs here yet, but I think we're moving in the right
> direction.

I guess the real question here is why isn't Gather Merge more like
Append and MergeAppend? That is, why did you complicate matters
by making it projection capable? That seems like a pretty random
decision from here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2017-03-14 14:08:14 Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Previous Message David Steele 2017-03-14 13:45:45 Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions