Re: [HACKERS] Another bug in pg_operator.h

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: dg(at)informix(dot)com (David Gould)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another bug in pg_operator.h
Date: 1998-10-29 05:36:31
Message-ID: 3771.909639391@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

dg(at)informix(dot)com (David Gould) writes:
> Also, it lets the planner generate
> better plans. If there is a negator or commutator it can use it
> instead of generating extra steps.

Well, I did *not* go looking for links that should be there and weren't
(except in the very special case that the reverse link existed). I
just tried to sanity-check the existing links.

I agree that it would be nice to look for missing links that should
be added ... but that is a performance enhancement, not a bug fix,
so I am not eager to do it this close to release. We should do
another pass over this table after 6.4 is out the door.

(Another reason I didn't try to do that is that I've got no good
idea how to find missing links, short of brain-numbingly tedious
hand examination. Can you suggest any automated way of finding
missing links, or at least finding likely things to look at?)

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-10-29 05:36:53 Re: [HACKERS] Another bug in pg_operator.h
Previous Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1998-10-29 05:33:00 Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 and reserved word USER...