| From: | Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joy Arulraj <jarulraj(at)cs(dot)cmu(dot)edu>, fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |
| Date: | 2016-09-06 19:15:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAPfS4ZxZHQGBKsa7UUhfmW1J-fqRqMj9EauEK_p3u=upiSm8eQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (2) It seems like there are still a few big questions about this commit:
>> - Is it wanted at the moment? It didn't seem like there's a
>> consensus about whether or not this enhancement should be
>> merged, even if the patch is pretty minimal.
>> - It seems like there are two competing patch
>> sets in play for this enhancement: Joy's and
>> Peter's. Presumably at most one of them would
>> be merged.
>
> These are things that reviews should be helping to decide. It's probably
> a squishier topic than some patches, but if you're interested, feel free
> to read code and weigh in.
Thanks. It sounds like worst-case scenario, I perform an unneeded
review. I'll give it a shot.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2016-09-06 19:18:14 | Re: PostgreSQL Database performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-06 19:12:59 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-06 19:26:54 | Re: Tuplesort merge pre-reading |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-06 19:12:59 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |