Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search
Date: 2013-12-05 05:16:37
Message-ID: 1386220597.5734.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 20:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lazy people? I'm not in a hurry to drop it; it's not costing us much to
> just sit there, other than in this connection which we see how to fix.

Actually, I think it probably costs a fair portion of extension authors
when their initial code crashes because they forgot to declare all their
functions V1. I think it might actually be more of a bother to lazy
people than a benefit.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-12-05 05:17:59 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2013-12-05 05:03:42 Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl fails with config-only directory