| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters |
| Date: | 2018-03-01 16:02:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1a212360-8665-1f3a-b74d-0cabe543729c@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Nikita,
On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
>
>> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters.
>>
>> This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru:
>> http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/talks/opclass_pgconf.ru-2018.pdf
>>
>> A analogous work was already done by Nikolay Shaplov two years ago:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5213596.TqFRiqmCTe%40nataraj-amd64
>> But this patches are not based on it, although they are very similar.
>
> You know, I am still working on this issue.
This patch was submitted to the 2018-03 CF at the last moment with no
prior discussion or review as far as I can tell. It appears to be
non-trivial and therefore not a good fit for the last CF for PG11.
In addition, based on Nikolay's response, I think the patch should be
marked Returned with Feedback until it is reconciled with the existing
patches.
Any objects to marking this Returned with Feedback? Or, I can move it
to the next CF as is.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2018-03-01 16:06:42 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
| Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2018-03-01 15:50:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance degradation of contended LWLock on NUMA |