On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > My own inclination is that Andrew's implementation, being more general > in nature, would be the better one to have in the codebase; but we don't > have a complete patch yet. Can we reach some compromise such as if > Andrew's patch is not completed then we push Surafel's?
+1 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:35 PM Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: > I was largely holding off on doing further work hoping for some > discussion of which way we should go. If you think my approach is worth > pursuing (I haven't seriously tested the performance, but I'd expect it > to be slower than Surafel's - the price you pay for flexibility) then I > can look at it further, but figuring out the planner stuff will take > some time. Flexibility with more generalized code is good, though if performance is significantly slower I would be concerned. I quickly reviewed the patch but haven't tested it yet. Is it realistic to add PERCENT into this patch or would that be a future enhancement? Thanks, *Ryan Lambert*
