On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:37:50AM +0000, fujii.y...@df.mitsubishielectric.co.jp wrote: > Hi. Mr.Momjian, Mr.Lane, Mr.Haas, hackers. > > I apologize for any misunderstanding regarding the context of the attached > patch and > the points on which I requested a review. Could you please allow me to > clarify? > > In the review around early December 2023, I received the following three > issues pointed out by Mr.Haas[1]. > 1. Transmitting state value safely between machines > 2. Making the patch clearer by adding SQL keywords > 3. Fixing the behavior when the HAVING clause is present > > In the email sent on February 22, 2024[2], I provided an update on the > progress made in addressing these issues. > Regarding issue 1, I have only provided a proposed solution in the email and > have not started the programming. > Therefore, the latest patch is not in a commit-ready state. As mentioned > later, we have also temporarily reverted the changes made to the > documentation. > Before proceeding with the programming, I would like to discuss the proposed > solution with the community and seek consensus. > If it is necessary to have source code in order to discuss, I can create a > simple prototype so that I can receive your feedback. > Would you be able to provide your opinions on it? > > Regarding issue 2., I have confirmed that creating a prototype allows us to > address the issue and clear the patch. > In this prototype creation, the main purpose was to verify if the patch can > be cleared and significant revisions were made to the previous version. > Therefore, I have removed all the document differences. > I have submitted a patch [3] that includes the fixes for issue 3. to the > patch that was posted in [2]. > Regarding the proposed solution for issue 1, unlike the patch posted in [3], > we have a policy of not performing partial aggregation pushdown if we cannot > guarantee compatibility and safety. > The latest patch in [3] is a POC patch. The patch that Mr. Momjian reviewed > is this. > If user-facing documentation is needed for this POC patch, it can be added. > > I apologize for the lack of explanation regarding this positioning, which may > have caused misunderstandings regarding the patch posted in [3].
That makes sense. Let's get you answers to those questions first before you continue. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
