| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort |
| Date: | 2018-03-16 08:47:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdskd1imS5ZLeCFSYU9ducifZOXgqCKT1c-nUd7DVirKnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> I agree those don't seem like an issue in the Incremental Sort patch,
> but like a more generic costing problems.
>
Yes, I think so too.
Do you think we can mark this patch RFC assuming that it have already got
pretty
much of review previously.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-03-16 10:02:03 | Hash join in SELECT target list expression keeps consuming memory |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-03-16 08:40:18 | Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs |