From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, sanyo(dot)moura(at)tatic(dot)net, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
Date: | 2019-01-21 08:21:46 |
Message-ID: | af4a685d-bc58-4cf2-56ab-5fe852e66496@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 2019/01/21 17:17, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2019/01/19 21:17), Amit Langote wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:58 PM Etsuro Fujita
>> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> I updated the patch as such and rebased it to the latest HEAD. I also
>>> added the commit message. Attached is an updated patch. Does that make
>>> sense? If there are no objections, I'll push that patch early next week.
>>
>> Thank you. Looks good to me.
>
> Cool. Pushed after tweaking the commit message based on the feedback from
> Justin offlist and a self-review.
Thank you.
Regards,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2019-01-21 08:22:55 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-01-21 08:17:53 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-01-21 08:56:45 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-01-21 08:17:53 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |