Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly

From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly
Date: 2022-07-19 01:03:58
Message-ID: CAMbWs4-_6tzajB98kwrrZHL8WqweC-H7woL_n9_Cz45z1J1zKQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:30 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > On 2022-Jul-18, Richard Guo wrote:
> >> BTW, not related to this patch, the new lines for parallel_aware check
> >> in setrefs.c are very wide. How about wrap them to keep consistent with
> >> arounding codes?
>
> > Not untrue! Something like this, you mean? Fixed the nearby typo while
> > at it.
>
> WFM. (I'd fixed the comment typo in my patch, but I don't mind if
> you get there first.)

+1 The fix looks good to me.

Thanks
Richard

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2022-07-19 01:09:12 Re: [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample()
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-07-19 01:03:45 Re: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns