Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-22 00:45:04
Message-ID: 20100122094504.E4A7.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> What I do think is that the quoted code snippet has no business being
> outside the planner proper. It'd be better to put it in planner.c
> or someplace like that.

Ah, I see. My concern was the dummy planner approach is using internal
functions of planner. It would be better if planner module exports
a cost estimate function for cluster.

Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-22 00:45:41 Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-22 00:22:09 Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0