| From: | ChenhuiMo <chenhuimo(dot)mch(at)qq(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v4] Make NumericVar storage semantics explicit |
| Date: | 2026-07-26 05:43:51 |
| Message-ID: | tencent_99D46C27980AADD554DAA4667E8F3C63520A@qq.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi John,
Thanks for the detailed feedback.
> In short, a focused, genuine clarity-only change might be worth doing,
> but this patch is not the way to do it.
Understood. I agree that this version mixes the goal of making the
existing NumericVar contract more explicit with new inline-buffer
machinery that is closer to a performance-oriented change. That makes
the patch harder to review and does not fit the clarity-only framing
well.
I will withdraw this version rather than keep iterating on it in its
current form. If I come back to this, I will try to prepare a much
smaller patch focused only on documenting and clarifying the existing
NumericVar contract, without introducing new inline-buffer machinery or
changing the storage model so broadly.
Thanks also for the process advice. I will use inline quoting and
versioned patches generated with git format-patch -vN in future
submissions.
Thanks again for taking a look.
Regards,
Chenhui Mo
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mats Kindahl | 2026-07-26 05:47:28 | Recovery does not honor io_combine_limit, causing IOPS saturation |
| Previous Message | ChenhuiMo | 2026-07-26 05:30:32 | [PATCH] Speed up repeat() for larger counts |