From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Date: | 2014-04-04 03:44:46 |
Message-ID: | 24287.1396583086@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> I think that those are objectively very large reductions in a cost
> that figures prominently in most workloads. Based solely on those
> facts, but also on the fairly low complexity of the patch, it may be
> worth considering committing this before 9.4 goes into feature freeze,
Personally, I have paid no attention to this thread and have no intention
of doing so before feature freeze. There are three dozen patches at
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=21
that have moral priority for consideration for 9.4. Not all of them are
going to get in, certainly, and I'm already feeling a lot of guilt about
the small amount of time I've been able to devote to reviewing/committing
patches this cycle. Spending time now on patches that didn't even exist
at the submission deadline feels quite unfair to me.
Perhaps I shouldn't lay my own guilt trip on other committers --- but
I think it would be a bad precedent to not deal with the existing patch
queue first.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-04-04 03:49:54 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-04-04 03:25:54 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |