On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This 001 patch looks so little like what I was expecting that I >> decided to start over from scratch. The new version I wrote is >> attached here. I don't understand why your version tinkers with the >> logic for setting the all-frozen bit; I thought that what I already >> committed dealt with that already, and in any case, your version >> doesn't even compile against latest sources. Your version also leaves >> the scan_all terminology intact even though it's not accurate any >> more, and I am not very convinced that the updates to the >> page-skipping logic are actually correct. Please have a look over >> this version and see what you think. > > Thank you for your advise. > Sorry, optimising logic of previous patch was old by mistake. > Attached latest patch incorporated your suggestions with a little revising.
Thanks. I adopted some of your suggested, rejected others, fixed a few minor things that I missed previously, and committed this. If you think any of the changes that I rejected still have merit, please resubmit those changes as separate patches. -- 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
