From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Aleksandr Parfenov <asp437@gmail.com>,
        a.bykov@postgrespro.ru, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation
In-reply-to: <20190216014332.ifjqaaew4tfvzpnk@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <402356c32eeb93d4fed01f66d6c7fe2d@postgrespro.ru>
 <20180906185109.661aaef0@asp437-ThinkPad-L380>
 <153994199621.10161.17815885396545049364.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <CACdpekK1oDy7-_HnXOaREa_8HM2r-fsp8iv5e6p8aWOdGdK8Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <11120.1541686083@localhost>
 <20190216014332.ifjqaaew4tfvzpnk@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:43:32 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <12716.1550449225.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:20:25 -0500
Message-ID: <12717.1550449225@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Given this I think the appropriate state of the CF entry would have been
> waiting-for-author, not needs review. Or alternatively
> returned-with-feedback or rejected.  I'm a bit confused as to why the
> patch was moved to the next CF twice?

We have this review from Antonin, and mine in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2906.1542395026%40sss.pgh.pa.us
and there's the cfbot report that the patch doesn't even apply anymore.

The dummy-relation stuff I referred to has now been merged, so there's
really no good reason not to revise the patch along that line.

I'm going to go set this CF entry to waiting-for-author, but unless
a rewritten patch appears soon, I think we should close it
returned-with-feedback.  I think the idea is potentially good, but
as I said in my review, I don't like this implementation; it has the
potential to be a net loss in some cases.

			regards, tom lane