| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP) |
| Date: | 2014-03-26 19:43:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrOvHqGzvOGz9dqiqXw_UxM9wEk8A+enbHWjS9Bgwj6iA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I've attached an updated invtrans_strictstrict_base patch which has the
> > feature removed.
>
> What is the state of play on this patch? Is the latest version what's in
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/64F96FD9-64D1-40B9-8861-E6182029220B@phlo.org
> plus this sub-patch? Is everybody reasonably happy with it? I don't
> see it marked "ready for committer" in the CF app, but time is running
> out.
>
>
As far as I know the only concern left was around the extra stats in the
explain output, which I removed in the patch I attached in the previous
email.
The invtrans_strictstrict_base.patch in my previous email replaces the
invtrans_strictstrict_base_038070.patch in that Florian sent here
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/64F96FD9-64D1-40B9-8861-E6182029220B@phlo.orgall
of the other patches are unchanged so it's save to use Florian's
latest
ones
Perhaps Dean can confirm that there's nothing else outstanding?
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-26 19:44:09 | Re: Minimum supported version of Python? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-26 18:33:08 | Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP) |