| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry |
| Date: | 2005-04-08 00:27:46 |
| Message-ID: | C29511B91B728B779BA7B170@sparkey.oopsware.intra |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
> I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful.
> There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice
> versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone
> out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by
> such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till
> after you merge.
>
The viewupdate patch would clearly be affected by this. However, i don't
think this is something too hard to change in our current patch, as long as
all fields are kept and keep their functionality.
[...]
--
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | a3a18850 | 2005-04-08 00:30:11 | Re: Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-07 23:58:56 | Re: Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient) |