On Mar 9, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Dave Page wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
The original patch was submitted by Koichi Suzuki - quite a few other
people have looked at it and provided comments. Simon Riggs was
assigned as the original reviewer, but for some reason Dave
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> The original patch was submitted by Koichi Suzuki - quite a few other
> people have looked at it and provided comments. Simon Riggs was
> assigned as the original reviewer, but for some reason Dave Page
> removed his name from the wiki a few
Robert,
The original patch was submitted by Koichi Suzuki - quite a few other
people have looked at it and provided comments. Simon Riggs was
assigned as the original reviewer, but for some reason Dave Page
removed his name from the wiki a few days ago (I'm fixing this now).
Actually, this patc
Tom,
I don't think this one is that far away either. I've been holding Bryce
and Ramon's feet to the fire on the issue of possible downside, but so
far there's not really much evidence of any *actual* as opposed to
theoretical downside.
What sorts of operations would we test which could pot
Josh Berkus writes:
>> I don't think this one is that far away either. I've been holding Bryce
>> and Ramon's feet to the fire on the issue of possible downside, but so
>> far there's not really much evidence of any *actual* as opposed to
>> theoretical downside.
> What sorts of operations wou
Robert Haas escribió:
> As far as I can tell the patch author has responded to all comments
> and pretty much done everything right. I haven't even looked at it
> enough to understand what it does or why I should care, but AFAICS
> it's had more interest and more reviewing than 90% of what was
>
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * GIN fast insert. Tom Lane committed some planner changes that make
>> it possible for an AM to not support index scans, and posted the
>> remaining patch. No one other than me has spoken in favor of retaing
>> support for index scans, so maybe
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Proposal of PITR performance improvement. Fujii Masao posted an
>> updated version of this patch. I believe it has yet to be reviewed by
>> a committer.
>
> Has it been reviewed by anybody? There's no trace of reviewing work
> on the commitfes
Robert Haas writes:
> [ much snipped ]
> * GIN fast insert. Tom Lane committed some planner changes that make
> it possible for an AM to not support index scans, and posted the
> remaining patch. No one other than me has spoken in favor of retaing
> support for index scans, so maybe Teodor shou
Here's an attempt on my part to summarize the status of the remaining patches.
* SE-PostgreSQL. Generally positive feedback from Heikki. New
version expected Monday 3/9, with changes to walker.c as requested by
Heikki. Rest of patch reviewable in the meantime.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pg
10 matches
Mail list logo
