Re: Making clausesel.c Smarter

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Making clausesel.c Smarter
Date: 2017-04-03 21:22:07
Message-ID: CAKJS1f8oN+YqkLW-c35+3UajzHbtwo0qPH=1MjN=FfGjodAk9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4 April 2017 at 08:24, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-04-03 20:59:42 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> Updated patch attached.
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing it.
>
> Given the time in the release cycle I'm afraid that this it's too late
> to get this into v10. Does anybody disagree? If not, it should be
> moved to the next CF.

I strongly disagree. The time in the release cycle is the final
commitfest. This is when patches are commited to the repository. The
exception to this is that no large invasive patches should arrive new
in the final commitfest. This is not one of those.

Tom has already mentioned he'd like to look at this. If you're not
willing, then please just don't look at it, but please also don't
remove other peoples opportunity for doing so.

Please explain your logic for thinking otherwise. Have I somehow
misunderstood what the 1 week extension means?

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-04-03 21:26:26 Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-04-03 21:17:41 Re: PATCH: recursive json_populate_record()