On 2 March 2016 at 10:57, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1 March 2016 at 20:03, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> In any event, I am now of the opinion that this patch needs to be reverted >> outright and returned to the authors for redesign. There are too many >> things wrong with it and too little reason to think that we have to have >> it in 9.5. >> > > Agreed; I'd already got to this thought while reading the thread. > > I'll get on with that. > > The patch is not of great importance to us? Since we are past 9.6 deadline > it seems just worth reverting and leaving for next release to come back > with a more isolated optimization. I don't want to add the last CF workload > with this. >
Reverted patch in HEAD and 9.5 Later, I will add the tests we discovered here to index scans, so that further optimization work is more easily possible. Thanks Tom, Petr for analysis; thanks Jeff for bisecting. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
