| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
| Date: | 2014-04-07 19:20:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20140407192019.GC4582@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Geoghegan (pg(at)heroku(dot)com) wrote:
> Actually, contrary to the original subject of this thread, that isn't
> the case. I have not added a support function 3, which I ultimately
> concluded was a bad idea. This is all sort support.
Well, as apparently no one is objecting to Greg reviewing it, I'd
suggest he do that and actually articulate his feelings on the patch
post-review and exactly what it is changing and if he feels it needs
public comment, rather than all this speculation by folks who aren't
looking at the patch.
In other words, in hindsight, Greg was rather premature with his
suggestion that he might commit it and rather than suggesting such, he
should have just said he was going to review it and then come back with
a detailed email argueing the case for it to go in.
I don't particularly fault Greg for that, but perhaps some of this could
be avoided in the future.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-07 19:22:33 | "Transaction local" statistics are incorrect at speed |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-04-07 19:12:23 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |