| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: executor relation handling |
| Date: | 2018-10-08 15:38:44 |
| Message-ID: | 28910.1539013124@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Keeping that comparison in mind, I'm inclined to think that 0001
> is the best thing to do for now. The incremental win from 0002
> is not big enough to justify the API break it creates, while your
> 0005 is not really attacking the problem the right way.
I've pushed 0001 now. I believe that closes out all the patches
discussed in this thread, so I've marked the CF entry committed.
Thanks for all the hard work!
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-08 15:43:42 | Re: PostgreSQL 12, JIT defaults |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2018-10-08 15:28:52 | Re: out-of-order XID insertion in KnownAssignedXids |