I've tested this under 7.3, and it works beautifully for the cases I've
built over the last 2 days. I can no longer bugger a plan up mearly
by reordering the WHERE clauses. Note that 2 of the five parts won't
patch in (involving constantqual). Looks to be code refactoring between
here and
Sorry, I was vague. I think we should apply and go to RC1 tomorrow.
There will always be tweaks and fixes. If we expect it to be perfect,
we will never make a final release. We are 2.5 months into beta, and
if we don't want +3 months beta, we should get going.
We have to start taking
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Sorry, I was vague. I think we should apply and go to RC1 tomorrow.
There will always be tweaks and fixes. If we expect it to be perfect,
we will never make a final release. We are 2.5 months into beta, and
if we don't want +3 months beta, we should get
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we are going to go for a beta6, I vote we reverse out the patch. Of
course, I prefer neither.
I read this several times and am still not quite sure which path you are
voting for. We can:
1. not apply the
Ross J. Reedstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've tested this under 7.3, and it works beautifully for the cases I've
built over the last 2 days. I can no longer bugger a plan up mearly
by reordering the WHERE clauses. Note that 2 of the five parts won't
patch in (involving constantqual). Looks
I'd ask for a quick beta6 ... even knowing everyone would hate me :)
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
I said:
Well, we could define it as a bug ;-) --- that is, a performance regression.
I'd be happier about adding a dozen lines of code to sort quals by
whether or not they contain
If we are going to go for a beta6, I vote we reverse out the patch. Of
course, I prefer neither.
Do we have to do a delay/feature analysis on this?
Marc, there will always be 7.3.1 to fix any problems. They will surely
happen so I think it is safe to push forward for tomorrow's RC1. Of
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd ask for a quick beta6 ... even knowing everyone would hate me :)
What's wrong with calling it RC1?
I think pushing out an RC tarball is the only way we'll shake loose any
more port reports. Putting out beta6 isn't going to attract attention
from
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we are going to go for a beta6, I vote we reverse out the patch.
It's not applied yet.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we are going to go for a beta6, I vote we reverse out the patch. Of
course, I prefer neither.
I read this several times and am still not quite sure which path you are
voting for. We can:
1. not apply the patch to fix Ross' problem, and ship RC1
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we are going to go for a beta6, I vote we reverse out the patch. Of
course, I prefer neither.
I read this several times and am still not quite sure which path you are
voting for. We can:
1. not apply the patch to fix Ross'
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
snip
Personally I think this is a low-risk patch and so choice 2 is
appropriate.
If this is the only change, then 2 does seem like the best mix of
risk/progress.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
Sorry, I was vague. I think we should
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. apply the patch, and ship RC1 tomorrow;
I think that's the best bet.
(That said, the philosophy of there's always 7.3.1 that Bruce alluded
to is not one that I agree with.)
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
Ross J. Reedstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry to be a pest, but I'd like to re-raise the issue I brought up
regarding a performance regression from 7.2.3, when subqueries are pulled
up and merged with their parent.
...
Tom was not excited about making the original change (we don't
I said:
Well, we could define it as a bug ;-) --- that is, a performance regression.
I'd be happier about adding a dozen lines of code to sort quals by
whether or not they contain a subplan than about flip-flopping on the
original patch. That would actually solve the class of problem you
It seems to me that about the only major issue right now is testing the
various platforms ... would anyone disagree with putting out an RC1 on
Friday whose primary purpose is platform testing? I don't believe there
is anything outstanding right now that would require us to do a beta6, and
RC1
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that about the only major issue right now is testing the
various platforms ... would anyone disagree with putting out an RC1 on
Friday whose primary purpose is platform testing?
Works for me. We should be able to resolve this awk issue
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that about the only major issue right now is testing the
various platforms ... would anyone disagree with putting out an RC1 on
Friday whose primary purpose is platform testing?
Works for me. We should be able to
18 matches
Mail list logo
