On 08/02/2014 08:16 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> Robert, Heikki and maybe Alvaro requested and/or explained this split back in
>> April. The fact that the would-be first patch was discussed and rejected in
>> the past does not counter that request. (I voted against Robert's 2012 patch.
>> My opposition was mild even then, and the patch now being a stepping stone to
>> a more-compelling benefit certainly tips the scale.) Given that the effect of
>> that decision is a moderate procedural change only, even if the request were
>> wrong, why continue debating it?
>
> Heikki asked for it, and Robert repeated the request in the past few
> days. I am not debating it.
Great, I'll wait for the patch.
> I merely don't understand the nature of the request.
Do you mean:
a) you don't understand what the patch should look like? or
b) you don't understand why it's been requested?
If a), I admit I don't remember the details of this patch or patches
very well either, but looking back at the archives here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZQVnuomFBWNHOyRQ8t+nVJp+3=e58jvvx_A9Y04QmHzrA@mail.gmail.com,
I think you had a pretty solid idea of how the split should look like.
So, please do that, i.e. post the patch that Robert did 2 years ago that
gave the 7% speedup, rebased over master. I don't recall the details of
that patch, so please explain briefly what it does, as if it was
submitted for the first time.
If b), see Noah's reply above. Hate to be blunt, but the nature of the
request is that you're not going to get anywhere with further debate,
without splitting the patch.
> I don't want to dredge up the details of the 2012 thread, but since
> you mention it the fact that the patch was not committed centered on a
> silly disagreement on a very fine point, and nothing more. It was
> *not* rejected, and my sense at the time was that it was very close to
> being committed. I was fairly confident that everyone understood
> things around the 2012 patch that way, and I sought clarity on that
> point. It's a totally non-surprising and easy to reason about patch.
> Clearly at least one person had some reservations about the basic idea
> at the time, and it was worth asking what the concern was before
> splitting the patch. It is easy to split the patch, but easier still
> to answer my question.
I didn't understand what that question is. Please just post the split
patches.
- Heikki
