Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes:
>> 2433: Erase the distinctClause if the result is unique by definition
>> ====================================================================
>> (parts of) The approach taken in this patch has been objected against in
>> favor
>> of work that Tom has proposed. Until that work materialize this patch is
>> blocked, and thus I think we are better of closing it and re-opening it when
>> it
>> gets unstuck. Unless Tom has plans to hack on this shortly?
> Ugh. This is a problematic dynamic. Tom has a different idea of what
> direction to take this but hasn't had a chance to work on it. So
> what's Andy Fan supposed to do here? He can't read Tom's mind and
> nobody else can really help him. Ultimately we all have limited time
> so this is a thing that will happen but is there anything we can do to
> resolve it in this case?
> We definitely shouldn't spend lots of time on this patch unless we're
> going to be ok going ahead without Tom's version of it. Is this
> something we can do using the Andy's data structure for now and change
> in the future?
> It looks like the Skip Scan patch was related to this work in some
> way? Is it blocked on it?
I did promise some time ago to get involved in the skip scan work.
I've so far failed to make good on that promise, but I will make
it a high priority to look at the area during this CF.
regards, tom lane
