Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqSeF-1asoSiA5rZ8YSLJF=79bja2sPEierHbP7uFt7GGQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Vladimir Borodin <root@simply.name>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Vladimir Borodin <root@simply.name> wrote:
> 31 янв. 2017 г., в 9:50, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> написал(а):
>
>> I am marking this patch as returned with feedback.
>
> Michael, sorry, but why?

Because I have been through many patches today.

> If I understood everything right, the main question
> from Jeff was why is it implemented in such way? And Jeff wanted to see
> other ways of solving the problem. Andrew wrote about them above and it
> seems that implementing them would be quite expensive and without any
> obvious win. I would rather expect some reaction from Jeff or may be someone
> else, so shouldn’t it be marked as «Ready for committer» or at least «Moved
> to next CF»?

I have moved to to the next CF.
--
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vladimir Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw