On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Mar 9, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
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
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
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com 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
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
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
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.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
