Subject: Re: Path to unreverting "Allow planner to use Merge Append to efficiently implement UNION"

From: David Rowley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 00:44:32 +1200

On Wed, 22 May 2024 at 00:35, Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On 2024-May-21, David Rowley wrote:
>
> > I've attached 2 patches.
> >
> > 0001 is a simple revert of Tom's revert (7204f3591).
> > 0002 fixes the issue reported by Hubert.
>
> I would like to request that you don't keep 0001's message as you have
> it here.  It'd be more readable to take 66c0185a3d14's whole commit
> message with a small suffix like "try 2" in the commit title, and add an
> additional second paragraph stating it was transiently reverted by
> 7204f35919b7.  Otherwise it's harder to make sense of the commit on its
> own later.

Thanks for having a look.  I was planning to have the commit message
as per attached. I'd only split the patch for ease of review per
request of Tom. I should have mentioned that here.

I would adjust the exact wording in the final paragraph as required
depending on what plan materialises.

This also fixes up the comment stuff that Heikki mentioned.

David

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 13:36:27 -0400

> This also fixes up the comment stuff that Heikki mentioned.

The consensus on pgsql-release was to unrevert this patch and commit
the fix now, rather than waiting for the next beta. However, the
consensus was also to push the un-revert as a separate commit from the
bug fix, rather than together as suggested by Álvaro. Since time is
short due to the impending release and it's very late where you are,
I've taken care of this. Hope that's OK.

Thanks,

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

---

From: David Rowley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 08:37:23 +1200

> I've taken care of this. Hope that's OK.

Thanks for handling that. It's much appreciated.

David