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

Reply via email to