From: | Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov(at)imap(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans |
Date: | 2020-02-07 15:22:12 |
Message-ID: | c9388a48-3644-8be1-d5e2-bf2306dca369@imap.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
> It took me a while to figure out what those names mean. "unfetched",
> as you call it on the code, may be more descriptive than "avoided" for
> the new label. However I think the other two are more confusing. It
> may be a good idea to change them together with this.
It'll be sad if this patch is forgotten only because of the words choice.
I've changed it all to "unfetched" for at least not to call the same
thing differently
in the code and in the output, and also rebased it and fit in 80 lines
width limit.
Best, Alex
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
bitmap_only_avoided_v2.patch | text/x-patch | 2.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-02-07 15:54:27 | Re: [PATCH] Erase the distinctClause if the result is unique by definition |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-02-07 15:18:25 | Re: Assumptions about the number of parallel workers |