On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:51, Itagaki Takahiro > <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:36, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> I am of the opinion that a run-time-extensible set of plan node types >>>> is merest fantasy. We will never have that, so putting in place 5% >>>> of the infrastructure for it is a waste of time and notational >>>> complexity. >>> >>> I think I agree; and moreover there's been no compelling argument made >>> why we would need that for SQL/MED anyway. >> >> I see. I'll cut useless parts from my patch. > > I tested simplified version, but I cannot see measurable performance > improvement at this time. So, I'll turn down the whole proposal > to use function pointer calls. I'm sorry for all the fuss.
Wait a minute... I'm confused. Didn't you have a measurable performance improvement with an earlier version of this patch? If taking out the "useless" parts removed the performance benefit, maybe they weren't useless? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
