| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Юрий Соколов <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sokolov Yura <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples |
| Date: | 2017-11-29 01:44:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS4JRP_xyO3YCuBktGhTkDMRvg3-WBTgLqwpnLrtx-Qzg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Maybe it's a stupid question. But would we still want to have this after
>> the change? These should be just specializations of the template version
>> imo.
>
> I also wonder why regression test output has changed. Wasn't this
> supposed to be a mechanical change in how the templating is
> implemented? Why would the behavior of the algorithm change, even if
> the change is only a change in the output order among equal elements?
>
> Also, is that one last raw CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in the template
> definition supposed to be there?
As work is still going on here I am moving the patch to next CF.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-29 01:47:58 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-29 01:43:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1 |