| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join |
| Date: | 2012-04-16 07:48:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKHLjAFyMdi6G4rpMT6tn9sSrHK=mMLabUS7vrNpg4e-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dunno. It might be easier to sell the idea of adding support for range
> joins in a couple of years, after we've seen how much use ranges get.
Once we've started the journey towards range types we must complete it
reasonably quickly.
Having partially implemented, unoptimised features is the same as not
having the feature at all, so it will remain unused until it really
works. We could say that about many features, but if Jeff is
championing this, I'd say go for it.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-04-16 07:54:31 | Re: Last gasp |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-04-16 07:38:49 | Re: index-only scans vs. Hot Standby, round two |