Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iZFj0-0007Vo-69 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:52:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iZFiy-0002Qv-NX for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:52:24 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iZFiy-0002Qo-Ef for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:52:24 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iZFiv-0002ZG-BE for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:52:24 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xAPEqE4q022573; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:52:14 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Nikita Glukhov , PostgreSQL Hackers , Alexander Korotkov , Julien Rouhaud , Thomas Munro , Marc Cousin , Tomas Vondra Subject: Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible In-reply-to: <20191125080809.GM99720@paquier.xyz> References: <12611.1564670226@sss.pgh.pa.us> <17590.1564685940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19189.1564687723@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19438.1565209940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20191125080809.GM99720@paquier.xyz> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:08:09 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <22571.1574693534.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:52:14 -0500 Message-ID: <22572.1574693534@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 02:35:50AM +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote: >> Attached 8th version of the patches. > Please be careful here. The CF entry was still marked as waiting on > author, but you sent a new patch series which has not been reviewed. > I have moved this patc to next CF instead. That seems a bit premature --- the new patch is only a couple of days old. The CF entry should've been moved back to "Needs Review", sure. (Having said that, the end of the month isn't that far away, so it may well end up in the next CF anyway.) regards, tom lane