Subject: Re: multivariate statistics v14
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
References: <060fe904-7210-cc5a-65d7-02f6e8f0cb1e@2ndquadrant.com>
 <26597.1458941172@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ef0d75d9-f8fd-5a81-850e-e5e42579fba8@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20160326.181833.1902389187691662331.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
 <95089064-e388-2cd1-ab62-7c88890eaf67@2ndquadrant.com>
 <56FA9CA9.4030401@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+TgmoY-wD=_TY-igpgPB0b5isXxBZoD94+i6DUkRGcD4mgZqA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?=c3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Message-ID: <5d1d62a6-6228-188c-e079-c1be59942168@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 20:55:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:46.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/46.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoY-wD=_TY-igpgPB0b5isXxBZoD94+i6DUkRGcD4mgZqA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 04/08/2016 05:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:18 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>> On 3/28/16 4:42 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> Yes, those are valid omissions. I plan to address them, and I'd also
>>> considering adding a section to 65.1 (How the Planner Uses Statistics),
>>> explaining more thoroughly how the planner uses multivariate stats.
>>
>> It looks you need post a new patch so I have marked this "waiting on
>> author".
>
> Since no new version of this patch has been posted in the last 10
> days, it seems clear that there will not be time for this to
> reasonably become ready for committer and then get committed in the
> few hours remaining before the deadline. That is a bummer, since I
> was hoping we would have this feature in this release, but hopefully
> we will get it into 9.7. I am marking it Returned with Feedback.
>

Well, me to. But my feeling is the patch received entirely insufficient 
amount of thorough code review, considering how important part of the 
code it touches. I agree docs are an important part of a patch, but 
polishing user-level docs would hardly move the patch closer to being 
committable (especially when there's ~50kB of READMEs).

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


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