Re: The flinfo->fn_extra question, from me this time.

From: Dent John <denty(at)QQdd(dot)eu>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
Subject: Re: The flinfo->fn_extra question, from me this time.
Date: 2019-11-03 15:53:26
Message-ID: F8E6F876-FDFA-42A8-BF55-09E6FD56D9F4@QQdd.eu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 3 Nov 2019, at 13:33, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> can be nice, if patch has some regress tests - it is good for memory refreshing what is target of patch.

With a suitably small work_mem constraint, it is possible to show the absence of buffers resulting from the tuplestore. It’ll need some commentary explaining what is being looked for, and why. But it’s a good idea.

I’ll take a look.

denty.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-11-03 15:58:30 Re: [PATCH] contrib/seg: Fix PG_GETARG_SEG_P definition
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2019-11-03 13:33:01 Re: The flinfo->fn_extra question, from me this time.