| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists |
| Date: | 2013-07-15 01:27:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobk9wTF7k3aYJ9_5Z_sqJOjNSNfNu5vWGvDe8gz63gdfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think it's a waste of code to try to handle bushy trees. A list is
>> not a particularly efficient representation of the pending list; this
>> will probably be slower than recusing in the common case. I'd suggest
>> keeping the logic to handle left-deep trees, which I find rather
>> elegant, but ditching the pending list.
>
> Is there going to be further discussion of this patch, or do I return it?
Considering it's not been updated, nor my comments responded to, in
almost two weeks, I think we return it at this point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2013-07-15 02:15:12 | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-15 01:26:38 | Re: pg_memory_barrier() doesn't compile, let alone work, for me |