| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: feature freeze and beta schedule |
| Date: | 2015-05-01 16:49:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQ9X36Dgb6OpmuW6nfeVqAqyGOUqVCLDwdOPCgQbFGLjw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> * Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts
> Unfortunately the discussion about potential performance regression
> has been largely sidestepped by bickering over minutiae.
> => ?
There really is no discussion about performance regressions, because
there doesn't have to be. It's a straightfroward case of making what
already works for the heap tuple and B-Tree tuple sort cases work for
the Datum case. The costs and the benefits are the same.
It was marked "ready for committer" some time ago.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-05-01 17:03:39 | Re: pg_dump: CREATE TABLE + CREATE RULE vs. relreplident |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-05-01 16:39:46 | Re: Replication, am I missing something |