From: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Richard Guo <riguo(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How to retain lesser paths at add_path()? |
Date: | 2020-01-11 08:07:11 |
Message-ID: | CAOP8fzaKP49Lr7DFoLhdDoTdzaqfA_JsdQe0=ROa+pn9Vnh+fg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
The proposition I posted at 10th-Oct proposed to have a separate list to retain
lesser paths not to expand the path_list length, but here are no comments by
others at that time.
Indeed, the latest patch has not been updated yet.
Please wait for a few days. I'll refresh the patch again.
Thanks,
2020年1月11日(土) 11:01 Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wonder what is the status of this patch/thread. There was quite a bit
> of discussion about possible approaches, but we currently don't have any
> patch for review, AFAICS. Not sure what's the plan?
>
> So "needs review" status seems wrong, and considering we haven't seen
> any patch since August (so in the past two CFs) I propose marking it as
> returned with feedback. Any objections?
>
> FWIW I think we may well need a more elaborate logic which paths to
> keep, but I'd prefer re-adding it back to the CF when we actually have a
> new patch.
>
> regards
>
> --
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
HeteroDB, Inc / The PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-01-11 09:52:30 | Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-01-11 07:37:08 | Re: pgbench - use pg logging capabilities |