Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans

From: Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov(at)imap(dot)cc>
To: Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans
Date: 2020-02-07 15:22:12
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> It took me a while to figure out what those names mean. "unfetched",
> as you call it on the code, may be more descriptive than "avoided" for
> the new label. However I think the other two are more confusing. It
> may be a good idea to change them together with this.
It'll be sad if this patch is forgotten only because of the words choice.
I've changed it all to "unfetched" for at least not to call the same
thing differently
in the code and in the output, and also rebased it and fit in 80 lines
width limit.

Best, Alex

Attachment Content-Type Size
bitmap_only_avoided_v2.patch text/x-patch 2.9 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2020-02-07 15:54:27 Re: [PATCH] Erase the distinctClause if the result is unique by definition
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-02-07 15:18:25 Re: Assumptions about the number of parallel workers