On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Aren't you interested in the significance of the patch, and the test case? >> >> Not particularly in the specifics to be honest. The tradeoffs of the >> techniques you used in there seem prohibitive to me. It's easy to make >> individual cases faster by sacrificing others. > > You're the one poring over the specifics of what I've done, to my > consternation. I am not prepared to defend the patch at that level, as > I've made abundantly clear. I've called it a sketch, a proof of > concept half a dozen times already. I don't understand your difficulty > with that. I also don't understand how you can be so dismissive of the > benchmark, given the numbers involved. You're being unreasonable.
I don't think he's being unreasonable, and I don't understand why you're getting bent out of shape about it. You proposed a patch, he articulated a problem, you don't want to fix it right now. All of which is fine. Why the ad hominem accusations? > If I didn't write this patch, and I talked to people about this issue > at pgCon, I'm not sure that anyone would be convinced that it was a > problem, or at least that it was this much of a problem. I agree with that, too. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
