pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: sanyo.moura@tatic.net, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:56:45 +0900
Message-ID: <5C45894D.6010109@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af4a685d-bc58-4cf2-56ab-5fe852e66496@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <8db4eca8-6e76-70ff-f934-e0228a1cc298@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<20181206075726.pig32e6thltb56hr@alvherre.pgsql>
	<CAExHW5umxU5FOoT8FBcqp-GWKMtZhnuEy7U6bNH8QfzvYwUgEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAExHW5uFwP_1N7RV6s8piQBvygGH+rppS60nFNHB9DKEM04ShA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5C34846E.9090600@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<96720c99-ffa0-01ad-c594-0504c8eda708@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<5C35D912.8040200@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<7354b5bf-5932-4c0c-81ee-d9550de18995@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<5C36E105.2020902@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<dd1de042-dca5-cfb9-bc66-2e39020fbf6a@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<5C38910B.8010901@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<a5c087d0-9ecc-1315-24d2-6303d14a6116@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<5C3EC4EC.5070404@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<5C41CCC0.5030702@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<CA+HiwqGEaU79m0vrT+B5hEg=tWbMwjc4YXdx7cuzfV9dbE44EQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5C458031.2000906@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<af4a685d-bc58-4cf2-56ab-5fe852e66496@lab.ntt.co.jp>

(2019/01/21 17:21), Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/01/21 17:17, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2019/01/19 21:17), Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:58 PM Etsuro Fujita
>>> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>   wrote:
>>>> I updated the patch as such and rebased it to the latest HEAD.  I also
>>>> added the commit message.  Attached is an updated patch.  Does that make
>>>> sense?  If there are no objections, I'll push that patch early next week.
>>>
>>> Thank you.  Looks good to me.
>>
>> Cool.  Pushed after tweaking the commit message based on the feedback from
>> Justin offlist and a self-review.
>
> Thank you.

One thing to add: I forgot back-patching :(, so I did that a little 
while ago.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita





view thread (53+ messages)

Message-ID: <5C45894D.6010109@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Permalink:  ../5C45894D.6010109@lab.ntt.co.jp/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/5C45894D.6010109@lab.ntt.co.jp

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, amitlangote09@gmail.com, ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0
  In-Reply-To: <5C45894D.6010109@lab.ntt.co.jp>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox