@Chen, @Till: Thanks. I will try. Best, Taewoo
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Chen Li <[email protected]> wrote: > I am always a big fan of separating a big merge into multiple small > changes. It will be good to do this "partitioning." > > Chen > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Taewoo Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Till for reviewing this giant patch set. > > > > At this moment, what I can try to do is removing all necessary test cases > > and changes that are related to full-text search preparation (changing > the > > function name of "contains" to "string-contains") since I thought this > > index-only plan branch could be merged first. > > > > I tried to separate logical LIMIT push-down to the index search and > > index-only plan. But, it turns out that it was hard. Other than this, all > > changes are related to index-only plan part (most of them are > accessMethod > > related.) In addition, Young-Seok already had one round. > > > > > > Best, > > Taewoo > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > we still have the big change on index-only plans outstanding. I think > > that > > > it would be good to have that feature. However, at it’s current size > > (+45K > > > lines, -15K lines) it is very (!) difficult to review. So I think that > > one > > > approach to get there would be to break it down into smaller more > > > achievable > > > steps. > > > I’ve added a few comments to the review with thoughts I had to do that. > > > What do you think? > > > Is that a good approach? Is it feasible? > > > Are there other ways? > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, > > > Till > > > > > >
