| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD |
| Date: | 2013-04-03 16:31:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ_MSt4gPd4XOn7bmFx7gaasJ_GW7LNk5n-va7sXAso2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In fact, I'm going to go further and say that I do not like the entire
> concept of scannability, either as to design or implementation, and
> I think we should just plain rip it out.
This has been my feeling from the beginning, so I'm happy to support
this position. I think the current version - where scan-ability is
tracked in just one way - is an improvement over the previous version
of the patch - where it was tracked in two different ways with a
confusing shuffle of information from one place to the other. But my
favorite number of places to track it would be zero.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2013-04-03 16:36:58 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-03 16:30:59 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |