From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name> |
Cc: | amborodin(at)acm(dot)org, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree |
Date: | 2017-01-31 08:18:23 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSeF-1asoSiA5rZ8YSLJF=79bja2sPEierHbP7uFt7GGQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name> wrote:
> 31 янв. 2017 г., в 9:50, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
> написал(а):
>
>> I am marking this patch as returned with feedback.
>
> Michael, sorry, but why?
Because I have been through many patches today.
> If I understood everything right, the main question
> from Jeff was why is it implemented in such way? And Jeff wanted to see
> other ways of solving the problem. Andrew wrote about them above and it
> seems that implementing them would be quite expensive and without any
> obvious win. I would rather expect some reaction from Jeff or may be someone
> else, so shouldn’t it be marked as «Ready for committer» or at least «Moved
> to next CF»?
I have moved to to the next CF.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2017-01-31 08:50:51 | Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw |
Previous Message | Vladimir Borodin | 2017-01-31 07:31:27 | Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree |