On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:05:51PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > The way I see it we can do either eager or lazy accounting. Eager might > work better for aggregates with many contexts, but it does increase the > overhead for the "regular" aggregates with just one or two contexts. > Considering how rare those many-context aggregates are (I'm not aware of > any such aggregate at the moment), it seems reasonable to pick the lazy > accounting.
Okay. > So I think the approach Jeff ended up with sensible - certainly as a > first step. We may improve it in the future, of course, once we have > more practical experience. > > Barring objections, I do plan to get this committed by the end of this > CF (i.e. sometime later this week). Sounds good to me. Though I have not looked at the patch in details, the arguments are sensible. Thanks for confirming. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
