Hi Tom,
Having been working with the PostGIS team to implement a custom analyze
routine for R-Tree selectivity, we have a question regarding the new
vacuum_delay_point() which is present in analyze.c. Is it the
responsibility of the programmers to remember to do a
vacuum_delay_point() before
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 February 2004 23:52
To: Mark Cave-Ayland
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ANALYZE patch for review
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yup indeed. Please find enclosed the latest
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: 13 February 2004 14:41
To: Mark Cave-Ayland
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ANALYZE patch for review
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only reason I
]
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ANALYZE patch for review
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I'd like to propose a slightly different solution. I think that
examine_attribute() should return a pointer to a custom structure
containing any information that needs to be passed
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 January 2004 15:31
To: Mark Cave-Ayland
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ANALYZE patch for review
lots cut about pointers
OK, I've had another attempt at writing the code as you
Hi Tom,
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 January 2004 17:16
To: Mark Cave-Ayland
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ANALYZE patch for review
My thinking behind this was that examine_attribute decides
whether a
column
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is what you're saying that a custom function would do something like
this:
typedef struct
{
VacAttrStats *v;
int mydata1;
int mydata2;
int mydata3;
} mystruct;
myanalyzeinfo = palloc0(sizeof(mystruct));
..
Mark Cave-Ayland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would mean that pretty much the whole of
examine_attribute is treated as type-specific code. In
consequence there would be a certain amount of duplication of
code across different type-specific setup routines, but that
does not bother me.
