| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| 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 18:58:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTLvwpeM3MOVp0dEWP=VQANm98nZ4AVegr3Pae8ue8gwQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> There are patches that are trivial enough
>> that it's fine for someone to commit them without a public review
>> first, but this isn't remotely close to being in that category. If
>> nothing else, the fact that it extends the definition of the btree
>> opclass is sufficient reason to merit a public review.
>
> hrmpf. You have a good point about that- I admit that I didn't consider
> that as much as I should have.
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.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-04-07 18:59:38 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2014-04-07 18:56:21 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |