On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 07:15:59PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/10/17 14:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'd really like to get it in. The performance improvements on its own
> > are significant, and it provides the basis for significantly larger
> > improvements again (JIT) - those followup improvements are large patches
> > again though, so I'd rather not do all of that next cycle.
> >
> > My next step (over the weekend) is to add tests to execQual.c to get it
> > a good chunk closer to 100% test coverage, and then do the same for the
> > new implementation (there's probably very little additional tests needed
> > after the conversion). Given all tests pass before/after, and there's a
> > lot of them, I think we can have a reasonable confidence of a low bug
> > density.
>
> That seems like a plan, but now would probably be a good time for some
> other hackers to take note of this proposal.
Well, the executor is long overdue for improvement, so I would love to
have this in 10.0. I am not sure what additional polishing will happen
if we punt it for 11.0. I think the only downside of having it in 10.0
is that it will not have lived in the source tree for as long a time
between commit and PG release, but if it is tested, that seems fine.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
