On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 07:15:59PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/10/17 14:40, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'd really like to get it in. The performance improvements on its own > > are significant, and it provides the basis for significantly larger > > improvements again (JIT) - those followup improvements are large patches > > again though, so I'd rather not do all of that next cycle. > > > > My next step (over the weekend) is to add tests to execQual.c to get it > > a good chunk closer to 100% test coverage, and then do the same for the > > new implementation (there's probably very little additional tests needed > > after the conversion). Given all tests pass before/after, and there's a > > lot of them, I think we can have a reasonable confidence of a low bug > > density. > > That seems like a plan, but now would probably be a good time for some > other hackers to take note of this proposal.
Well, the executor is long overdue for improvement, so I would love to have this in 10.0. I am not sure what additional polishing will happen if we punt it for 11.0. I think the only downside of having it in 10.0 is that it will not have lived in the source tree for as long a time between commit and PG release, but if it is tested, that seems fine. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers