| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
| Date: | 2018-07-04 01:48:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20180704014852.GC1672@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 08:31:27PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am not sure if it is much interesting to keep around this table set
> for pg_upgrade, so I would drop it. Except for that, the result looks
> fine. I'll double-check and wrap it tomorrow on HEAD and REL_11_STABLE.
> The optimizations mentioned sound interesting, though I would recommend
> to not risk the stability of v11 at this point, so let's keep them for
> v12~.
So at the end I have dropped the table from the test, and pushed the
patch to HEAD and REL_11_STABLE. Thanks David for the patch, and others
for the reviews.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-07-04 01:55:21 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-04 01:48:40 | pgsql: Remove dead code for temporary relations in partition planning |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-04 01:50:28 | Re: Possible bug in logical replication. |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2018-07-04 01:48:39 | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |