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 planmain.
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
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 shoul
> 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 taki
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
--
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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 ap
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 f
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 t
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?
htt
"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 attentio
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
course
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 co
"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).
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
>
"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
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:43:14PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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
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
"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
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 mig
19 matches
Mail list logo
