Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:05:30 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
	Bhushan Uparkar <bhushan.uparkar@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: Index Skip Scan
Message-ID: <20180816190530.GV3326@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <707b6f68-16fa-7aa7-96e5-eeb4865e6a30@redhat.com>
 <CAPpHfducUiDw7hVT=Vui8rxTmawCkVc0H--v=jdbztMUGhzuRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <89F84E17-D684-4717-B66F-0F05CB00168E@gmail.com>
 <CAEepm=1ikXHVgSNruQ1HydDZm3OLnLNb5qT2c8S=Mh-VsFQXcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <51bb3284-2902-1c64-0bae-8866c85cde47@redhat.com>
 <20180816183602.GT3326@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <c07bc929-26e2-27a9-adcb-ea12a735037a@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sSlWXIgxWro0haeJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c07bc929-26e2-27a9-adcb-ea12a735037a@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--sSlWXIgxWro0haeJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Jesper Pedersen (jesper.pedersen@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 08/16/2018 02:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Not sure where this came from, but I don't think it's particularly good
> >to be suggesting that one feature is more important than another or that
> >we need to have one wait for another as this seems to imply.  I'd
> >certainly really like to see PG finally have skipping scans, for one
> >thing, and it seems like with some effort that might be able to happen
> >for v12.  I'm not convinced that we're going to get pluggable storage to
> >happen in v12 and I don't really agree with recommending that people
> >hold off on making improvements to things because it's coming.
>=20
> My point was that I know this patch needs work, so any feedback that get =
it
> closer to a solution will help.
>=20
> Pluggable storage may / may not add new requirements, but it is up to the
> people working on that, some of which are Committers, to take time "off" =
to
> provide feedback for this patch in order steer me in right direction.

I don't think it's really necessary for this work to be suffering under
some concern that pluggable storage will make it have to change.  Sure,
it might, but it also very well might not.  For my 2c, anyway, this
seems likely to get into the tree before pluggable storage does and it's
pretty unlikely to be the only thing that that work will need to be
prepared to address when it happens.

> Work can happen in parallel, and I'm definitely not recommending that peo=
ple
> hold off on any patches that they want to provide feedback for, or submit
> for a CommitFest.

Yes, work can happen in parallel, and I don't really think there needs
to be a concern about some other patch set when it comes to getting this
patch committed.

Thanks!

Stephen

--sSlWXIgxWro0haeJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=k/v6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sSlWXIgxWro0haeJ--