Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYQ8v2-SPHcxfM+4fuO2+rtemjGssW7jRTyK1D7dRy7rA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of
ordered [set] aggregates
Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> PFA my proposal for comment changes for 9.5 and master. This is based >>> on your 0001, but I edited somewhat. Please let me know your >>> thoughts. I am not willing to go further and rearrange actual code in >>> 9.5 at this point; it just isn't necessary. >> >> Fine by me. But this revision hasn't made the important point at all >> -- which is that 0002 is safe. That's a stronger guarantee than the >> abbreviated key representation being pass-by-value. > > Right. I don't think that we should back-patch that stuff into 9.5. OK, so I've gone ahead and committed and back-patched that. Can you please rebase and repost the remainder as a 9.6 proposal? Thanks, -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: