Re: Tid scan improvements

From: Edmund Horner <ejrh00(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Tid scan improvements
Date: 2021-06-07 11:46:26
Message-ID: CAMyN-kAH1e3Wd6GYsV=N6z8_P1TSUHn4D6FTJnw-GEy91i9UYQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 22:11, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> This patch didn't add _outTidRangePath() even though we have outNode()
> coverage for most/all path nodes. Was this just forgotten? See
> attached patch.
>

Yes, it looks like an omission. Thanks for spotting it. Patch looks good
to me.

Edmund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2021-06-07 11:50:04 Re: Tid scan improvements
Previous Message houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-06-07 11:38:40 RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key