Re: Path question

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:57:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/9/3 Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
> > On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional
> >> optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is
> >> more general and extremely valuable in its own right.
> >
> > we have revised greg's wonderful work and ported the entire thing
> > to head. it solves the problem of merge_append. i did some
> > testing earlier on today and it seems most important cases are
> > working nicely.
>
> First, thanks for merging this up to HEAD. I took a look through
> this patch tonight, and the previous reviews thereof that I was able
> to find, most notably Tom's detailed review on 2009-07-26. I'm not
> sure whether or not it's accidental that this didn't get added to
> the CF,

It's because I missed putting it in, and oversight I've corrected. If
we need to bounce it on to the next one, them's the breaks.

> [points elided]
>
> 7. I think there's some basic code cleanup needed here, also: comment
> formatting, variable naming, etc.

Hans-Jürgen,

Will you be able to get to this in the next couple of days?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate