Re: [HACKERS] Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry
--On Donnerstag, April 07, 2005 20:48:12 -0400 Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One piece of wisdom I've managed to grasp is that when Tom asks for objections or comments, you better speak very quickly because he codes way too fast (that, or he posts when the patch is almost ready.) Hehe, i noticed that after hitting sent...it's not that bad. I didn't manage to follow the lists the last 2 days, and was awaiting objections from Jaime Casanova, first. (I guess if you are following development closely you should be subscribed to pgsql-committers.) I am already, thanks :) -- Bernd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry
--On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful. There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till after you merge. The viewupdate patch would clearly be affected by this. However, i don't think this is something too hard to change in our current patch, as long as all fields are kept and keep their functionality. [...] -- Bernd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:27:46AM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote: --On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful. There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till after you merge. The viewupdate patch would clearly be affected by this. You mean _is_ affected by this, I guess. The change was already committed. One piece of wisdom I've managed to grasp is that when Tom asks for objections or comments, you better speak very quickly because he codes way too fast (that, or he posts when the patch is almost ready.) (I guess if you are following development closely you should be subscribed to pgsql-committers.) -- Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan (A. Christie) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
[HACKERS] Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry
I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful. There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till after you merge. IIRC the reason for the separation is that long ago in Berkeley days, a TargetEntry could contain either a Resdom or an Fjoin ... but we got rid of Fjoin in 7.4 (it was broken long before that) and it's not likely to come back. The advantage of folding 'em together is code simplification and elimination of palloc overhead. I doubt it'll really make for a measurable speedup, but I think it's worth doing anyway to simplify the code. Objections? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:19:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful. There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Gee, I was looking at that code and nearby comments three days ago and wondering if I'd do that. -- Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Voy a acabar con todos los humanos / con los humanos yo acabaré voy a acabar con todos / con todos los humanos acabaré (Bender) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
