(2014/08/27 11:06), Tom Lane wrote: > Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> (2014/08/27 3:27), Tom Lane wrote: >>> I looked this over, and TBH I'm rather disappointed. The patch adds >>> 150 lines of dubiously-correct code in order to save ... uh, well, > >> Just for my study, could you tell me why you think that the code is >> "dubiously-correct"? > > It might be fine; I did not actually review the new > adjust_appendrel_attr_needed code in any detail. What's scaring me off it > is (1) it's a lot longer and more complicated than I'd thought it would > be, and (2) you already made several bug fixes in it, which is often an > indicator that additional problems lurk.
Okay. > It's possible there's some other, simpler, way to compute child > attr_needed arrays that would resolve (1) and (2). However, even if we > had a simple and obviously-correct way to do that, it still seems like > there's not very much benefit to be had after all. So my thought that > this would be worth doing seems wrong, and I must apologize to you for > sending you chasing down a dead end :-( Please don't worry yourself about that! Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers