Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdv1KpyUYcA53AJPDf679wbOULO9UZPXP9f76U2qE1vjXg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 03/28/2018 03:28 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> BTW, patch had conflicts with master.  Please, find rebased version
>> attached.
>
> Despite by patch conflist patch looks commitable, has anybody objections
> to commit it?
>
> Patch recieved several rounds of review during 2 years, and seems to me,
> keeping it out from sources may cause a lost it. Although it suggests
> performance improvement in rather wide usecases.
>

No objections from me - if you want me to do one final round of review
after the rebase (not sure how invasive it'll turn out), let me know.

Rebased patch is attached.  Incremental sort get used in multiple places
of partition_aggregate regression test.  I've checked those cases, and it seems
that incremental sort was selected right. 

BTW one detail I'd change is name of the GUC variable. enable_incsort
seems unnecessarily terse - let's go for enable_incremental_sort or
something like that.

Already enable_incsort was already renamed to enable_incrementalsort since [1].  


------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dmitry Ivanov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION