|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Cc:||Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 1/12/18 7:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
>>> * Konstantin Knizhnik (k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru) wrote:
>>>> Updated version of the patch is attached.
>>> This patch appears to apply with just a bit of fuzz and make check
>>> passes, so I'm not sure why this is currently marked as 'Waiting for
>>> I've updated it to be 'Needs review'. If that's incorrect, feel free to
>>> change it back with an explanation.
>> Hi Konstantin,
>> undefined reference to `PortalGetHeapMemory'
>> That's because commit 0f7c49e85518dd846ccd0a044d49a922b9132983 killed
>> PortalGetHeapMemory. Looks like it needs to be replaced with
> Hi Thomas,
> Thank you very much for reporting the problem.
> Rebased version of the patch is attached.
This patch has received no review or comments since last May and appears
too complex and invasive for the final CF of PG11.
I don't think it makes sense to keep pushing a patch through CFs when it
is not getting reviewed. I'm planning to mark this as Returned with
Feedback unless there are solid arguments to the contrary.
|Next Message||Emre Hasegeli||2018-03-02 14:32:07||Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types|
|Previous Message||Magnus Hagander||2018-03-02 14:22:33||Re: Online enabling of checksums|