Re: Rework of collation code, extensibility

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rework of collation code, extensibility
Date: 2023-01-31 10:40:49
Message-ID: 75c4b010-b15c-86d1-fde6-fa6f91de0e1d@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 27.01.23 00:47, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I'm hoping to commit 0002 and 0003 soon-ish, maybe a week or two,
> please let me know if you want me to hold off. (I won't commit the GUCs
> unless others find them generally useful; they are included here to
> more easily reproduce my performance tests.)

I have looked a bit at 0002 and 0003. I like the direction. I'll spend
a bit more time reviewing it in detail. It moves a lot of code around.

I don't know to what extent this depends on the abbreviated key GUC
discussion. Does the rest of this patch set depend on this?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2023-01-31 10:46:05 Re: heapgettup() with NoMovementScanDirection unused in core?
Previous Message wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com 2023-01-31 10:40:03 RE: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication