| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Combining Aggregates |
| Date: | 2015-03-30 05:28:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQDR+L2K970SkZJ__syKAEM3PjctDr12wkKy17W79WDkw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:08 PM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 02:48, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> David, if you can update your patch with some docs to explain the
>> behaviour, it looks complete enough to think about committing it in
>> early January, to allow other patches that depend upon it to stand a
>> chance of getting into 9.5. (It is not yet ready, but I see it could
>> be).
>>
>>
> I've been thinking of bumping this patch to the June commitfest as the
> patch only exists to provide the basic infrastructure for things like
> parallel aggregation, aggregate before join, and perhaps auto updating
> materialised views.
>
> It seems unlikely that any of those things will happen for 9.5.
>
Yeah, I guess so...
> Does anybody object to me moving this to June's commitfest?
>
Not from my side FWIW. I think it actually makes sense.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-03-30 06:00:30 | Re: getting rid of "thread fork emulation" in pgbench? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-30 05:27:20 | Re: pgsql: Centralize definition of integer limits. |