Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort
Date: 2018-03-16 08:47:25
Message-ID: CAPpHfdskd1imS5ZLeCFSYU9ducifZOXgqCKT1c-nUd7DVirKnw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> I agree those don't seem like an issue in the Incremental Sort patch,
> but like a more generic costing problems.
>

Yes, I think so too.
Do you think we can mark this patch RFC assuming that it have already got
pretty
much of review previously.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Khandekar 2018-03-16 10:02:03 Hash join in SELECT target list expression keeps consuming memory
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-03-16 08:40:18 Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs