| From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw: oddity in costing presorted foreign scans with local stats |
| Date: | 2019-06-10 08:37:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAPmGK17DNJrEKumTCBHevDM2KS6D_6MgcpWqxnVJf-h=skgMAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:58 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I made stricter an assertion test I added on retrieved_rows. Also, I
> did some editorialization further and added the commit message.
> Attached is an updated version of the patch. If there are no
> objections, I'll commit the patch.
I noticed that the previous patch was an old version; it didn't update
the assertion test at all. Attached is a new version updating that
test. I think I had been under the weather last week due to a long
flight.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-estimate_path_cost_size-3.patch | application/octet-stream | 10.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex | 2019-06-10 08:42:03 | Re: Why to index a "Recently DEAD" tuple when creating index |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-06-10 08:11:02 | Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions? |