On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:57:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 2010/9/3 Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs@cybertec.at>:
>>>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional
>>>>> optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is
>>>>> more general and extremely valuable in its own right.
>>>>
>>>> we have revised greg's wonderful work and ported the entire thing
>>>> to head. it solves the problem of merge_append. i did some
>>>> testing earlier on today and it seems most important cases are
>>>> working nicely.
>>>
>>> First, thanks for merging this up to HEAD. I took a look through
>>> this patch tonight, and the previous reviews thereof that I was able
>>> to find, most notably Tom's detailed review on 2009-07-26. I'm not
>>> sure whether or not it's accidental that this didn't get added to
>>> the CF,
>>
>> It's because I missed putting it in, and oversight I've corrected. If
>> we need to bounce it on to the next one, them's the breaks.
>>
>>> [points elided]
>>>
>>> 7. I think there's some basic code cleanup needed here, also: comment
>>> formatting, variable naming, etc.
>>
>> Hans-Jürgen,
>>
>> Will you be able to get to this in the next couple of days?
>
> I don't see a response to this which I assume means "no" - I'm going
> to take a crack at fixing some of these issues.
hello ...
sorry for not getting back to you sooner. i am currently on the road for some days.
we got the top 3 things fixed already. however, some code seems to be relying on a sorted list somewhere(???).
we are in the process of sorting out most of the stuff.
i guess we will have something done next week.
sorry for the delay.
many thanks,
hans
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
