| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Sven Klemm <sven(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Handle SK_SEARCHNULL and SK_SEARCHNOTNULL in HeapKeyTest |
| Date: | 2024-07-02 09:22:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQSuCbJWnozvjHLqZSFkh9cT8V9FUf0+wW0_NcjrJEJA6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 10:15, Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
> The referred patch was rejected at first because it didn't modify
> nodeSeqScan.c to make use of the change within the core.
I guess we interpret Heikis email differently. I read it as: "If this
improves performance, then let's also start using it in core. If not,
why do extensions need it?" And I think you quite clearly explained
that even if perf is not better, then the usability for extensions
that don't want to use SPI is better.
I don't think Heiki meant his response as not using it in core being a
blocker for the patch. But maybe my interpretation of his response is
incorrect.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2024-07-02 09:34:00 | Re: Optimize numeric.c mul_var() using the Karatsuba algorithm |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-07-02 09:09:49 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |