| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2018-10-09 07:17:20 |
| Message-ID: | 47712b16-2b78-d66c-81b8-8afadf6bcd70@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/10/09 0:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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!
Thanks a lot for reviewing and committing.
Regards,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-09 07:31:06 | Re: executor relation handling |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-10-09 06:30:42 | Re: merge semi join cost calculation error |