| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query |
| Date: | 2015-09-23 23:10:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoah+Oy_VmXAutBe+rHA8aQTDXtdXK4A-Nk+Xb3qrakvFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> But if we're sure we don't want to support that, changing the behavior
>> of the read routines would be fine with me, too. It would even save a
>> few cycles. Would you also want to rip out the stuff that fixes up
>> opfuncid as dead code? I assume yes, but sometimes I assume things
>> that are false.
>
> Yeah, though I think of that as a longer-term issue, ie we could clean it
> up sometime later.
So, you're thinking of something as simple as the attached?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| dont-clear-opfuncid.patch | application/x-patch | 2.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-09-23 23:25:24 | Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-09-23 22:30:33 | Re: Calculage avg. width when operator = is missing |