Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:25:53 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: 'Amit Langote' <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: speeding up planning with partitions
Message-ID: <201901300325.ptdcgkb5kta5@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A5125CE37@g01jpexmbkw24>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1013-2c1e88
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jan-30, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:

> Why I did these tests is that I wanted to confirm that even if we
> apply each patch one by one, there's no performance problem. Because
> patches are quite large, I just felt it might be difficult to commit
> these patches all at once and I thought committing patch one by one
> would be another option to commit these patches. I don't know there is
> the rule in the community how patches should be committed, and if
> there, my thoughts above may be bad.

There are no absolute rules, but if I was committing it, I would
certainly commit each separately, mostly because reviewing the whole
series at once looks daunting ... and given the proposed commit
messages, I'd guess that writing a combined commit message would also be
very difficult.

So thanks for doing these tests.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services