| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikita Malakhov <HukuToc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: MergeAppend could consider sorting cheapest child path |
| Date: | 2025-05-07 05:02:05 |
| Message-ID: | e1d3f1b5-a541-4097-85e0-50055c937d28@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/5/2025 15:56, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> Andrei Lepikhov писал(а) 2025-05-05 14:38:
> Also logic a bit differs if path is NULL. In
> get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys_ext() we explicitly check for path being
> NULL, in get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys_ext() only after
> calculating sort cost.
>
> I've tried to fix comments a bit and unified functions definitions.
Generally seems ok, I'm not a native speaker to judge the comments. But:
if (base_path && path != base_path)
What is the case in your mind where the base_path pointer still may be
null at that point?
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jack Ng | 2025-05-07 05:34:37 | RE: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2025-05-07 05:01:55 | Re: Fix slot synchronization with two_phase decoding enabled |