From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique
In-reply-to: <20160407190214.GA569221@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20160407190214.GA569221@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:02:14 -0300"
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:21:39 -0400
Message-ID: <12499.1460056899@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't know if you have time to look at this now --- my clock says it's
>> already Friday morning in New Zealand.

> FWIW the feature freeze rules state that it is allowed for a committer
> to request an extension to the feature freeze date for individual
> patches:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY56w5FOzeEo%2Bi48qehL%2BBsVTwy-Q1M0xjUhUCwgGW7-Q%40mail.gmail.com
> It seems to me that the restrictions laid out there are well met for
> this patch, if you only need a couple of additional days for this patch
> to get in.

Hmm ... the changes I'm thinking about here are certainly pretty
mechanical, if tedious.  The main question mark I have hanging over
this patch is whether the planning-time penalty is too large --- but
that's something that can be tested with the patch as it stands.
Let me go investigate that a bit before requesting an extension.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers