| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Date: | 2017-11-14 18:43:36 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j+CGU6QAjpU_SwP-hn32W0byZwQO=DOcVtetsLsWmP5vQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 November 2017 at 13:12, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> Here's the remaining bits, rebased.
>
> It's true that Tom and I reviewed patch 0001, as your proposed commit
> message states. But it's also true that we both said that it probably
> wasn't a good idea.
I don't see any comments from you or Tom about patch 0001, which was
simple refactoring and not much to complain about.
Perhaps there is some confusion about the numbering?
I see that Alvaro had taken your comments on memory contexts into
account in his later patch.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-11-14 18:54:07 | Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-11-14 18:42:27 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort |