Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Date: 2019-03-05 01:38:53
Message-ID: CAKJS1f8ivT-=UdnsPxFq+hTi4QrspdCdtBZ8T7LtBUPJHv_uEw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks a lot for taking the time to look at this.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 03:03, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> As for the latest version (v8-0001-...) I've only caught a small typo: "When
> the first subpath needs sorted ...". It was probably meant "... needs sort
> ...".

That was a sort of short way of saying "needs [to be] sorted". I've
added in the missing "to be" in the attached.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
v9-0001-Allow-Append-to-be-used-in-place-of-MergeAppend-f.patch application/octet-stream 58.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-03-05 02:01:33 Re: psql display of foreign keys
Previous Message Shawn Debnath 2019-03-05 01:25:08 Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue