On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:05:51PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> The way I see it we can do either eager or lazy accounting. Eager might
> work better for aggregates with many contexts, but it does increase the
> overhead for the "regular" aggregates with just one or two contexts.
> Considering how rare those many-context aggregates are (I'm not aware of
> any such aggregate at the moment), it seems reasonable to pick the lazy
> accounting.
Okay.
> So I think the approach Jeff ended up with sensible - certainly as a
> first step. We may improve it in the future, of course, once we have
> more practical experience.
>
> Barring objections, I do plan to get this committed by the end of this
> CF (i.e. sometime later this week).
Sounds good to me. Though I have not looked at the patch in details,
the arguments are sensible. Thanks for confirming.
--
Michael
