On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Aleksander Alekseev <a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Hello, Robert > > Thanks for your review. I believe I fixed items 1, 2 and 3 (see > attachment). Also I would like to clarify item 4. > >> 4. It mixes together multiple ideas in a single patch, not only >> introducing a hashing concept but also striping a brand-new layer of >> abstraction across the resource-owner mechanism. I am not sure that >> layer of abstraction is a very good idea, but if it needs to be done, >> I think it should be a separate patch. > > Do I right understand that you suggest following? > > Current patch should be split in two parts. In first patch we create > and use ResourceArray with array-based implementation (abstraction > layer). Then we apply second patch which change ResourceArray > implementation to hashing based (optimization).
Well, sorta. To be honest, I think this patch is really ugly. If we were going to do this then, yes, I would want to split the patch into two parts along those lines. But actually I don't really want to do it this way at all. It's not that I don't want the performance benefits: I do. But the current code is really easy to read and extremely simple, and this changes it into something that is a heck of a lot harder to read and understand. I'm not sure exactly what to do about that, but it seems like a problem. -- 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
