|From:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|To:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Making clausesel.c Smarter|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On 07 Sep 2017, at 09:30, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> On 06 Sep 2017, at 07:13, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 6 September 2017 at 00:43, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>>> This patch was moved to the currently open Commitfest. Given the above
>>> comment, is the last patch in this thread still up for review, or are you
>>> working on a new version? Just to avoid anyone reviewing an outdated version.
>> Hi Daniel,
>> I've not had time to work on a new version yet and I can't imagine
>> that I will for quite some time.
>> The idea I had to remove the quadratic search on the list was to add
>> to or modify equal() in equalfuncs.c to have it return -1, 0, +1 and
>> use that as a comparison function in a binary search tree. The Btree
>> would complement List as a way of storing Nodes in no particular
>> order, but in a way that a Node can be found quickly. There's likely
>> more than a handful of places in the planner that would benefit from
>> this already.
>> It's not a 5-minute patch and it probably would see some resistance,
>> so won't have time to look at this soon.
>> If the possibility of this increasing planning time in corner cases is
>> going to be a problem, then it might be best to return this with
>> feedback for now and I'll resubmit if I get time later in the cycle.
> For now I’ve marked this “Waiting on Author” awaiting a new patch for the
> community to consider. If there is no time to hack on this in the current CF
> (which seems likely given your mail above) I’ll move it to the next CF as this
> one draws to a close.
Going back on my previous thinking of moving to the next CF, I am instead
marking this as returned with feedback. When a new version of the patch is
ready, please re-submit to a future commitfest.
|Next Message||Daniel Gustafsson||2017-10-02 10:06:28||Re: Hooks to track changed pages for backup purposes|
|Previous Message||Daniel Gustafsson||2017-10-02 09:53:16||Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()|