Re: distinct estimate of a hard-coded VALUES list

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: distinct estimate of a hard-coded VALUES list
Date: 2017-08-17 17:51:31
Message-ID: CAMkU=1yuEnrM7v+beQqkDUOmndemUO6+OnrACH7n1e4tNfFLug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > This patch still applies, and I think the argument for it is still valid.
> > So I'm going to make a commit-fest entry for it. Is there additional
> > evidence we should gather?
>
> I think we had consensus to apply this at the start of the next
> development cycle; I just forgot to do it for v10. Hence, pushed
> into v11.
>

Thanks,

Jeff

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-08-17 18:06:59 Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-08-17 17:50:47 Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90