Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query
Date: 2015-09-24 16:35:49
Message-ID: 6397.1443112549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Also, it's not like this change couldn't be UN-done at a future point.
> I mean, Tom didn't like the flag I added aesthetically, but if we
> needed it, we could have it. Or we could engineer something else.

For the record: that's true for the patch you just committed. But once
I remove the hopefully-now-dead planner support for recomputing opfuncid,
it would get a lot more painful to reverse the decision.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2015-09-24 16:40:45 Re: DBT-3 with SF=20 got failed
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-09-24 16:34:10 Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query