| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Floris Van Nee <florisvannee(at)optiver(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch |
| Date: | 2022-03-22 20:33:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJK8PgBjRBRn42EP-CzSfvKi9MiX_3M+yeWXAzqdLM_qw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 2:34 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> IMO it's pretty clear that having "duelling" patches below one CF entry is a
> bad idea. I think they should be split, with inactive approaches marked as
> returned with feeback or whatnot.
I have the impression that this thread is getting some value from
having a CF entry, as a multi-person collaboration where people are
trading ideas and also making progress that no one wants to mark as
returned, but it's vexing for people managing the CF because it's not
really proposed for 15. Perhaps what we lack is a new status, "Work
In Progress" or something?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-22 20:34:05 | Re: Optimize external TOAST storage |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2022-03-22 20:00:08 | Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch |