On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:57:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 2010/9/3 Hans-Jürgen Schönig <h...@cybertec.at>: > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional > >> optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is > >> more general and extremely valuable in its own right. > > > > we have revised greg's wonderful work and ported the entire thing > > to head. it solves the problem of merge_append. i did some > > testing earlier on today and it seems most important cases are > > working nicely. > > First, thanks for merging this up to HEAD. I took a look through > this patch tonight, and the previous reviews thereof that I was able > to find, most notably Tom's detailed review on 2009-07-26. I'm not > sure whether or not it's accidental that this didn't get added to > the CF,
It's because I missed putting it in, and oversight I've corrected. If we need to bounce it on to the next one, them's the breaks. > [points elided] > > 7. I think there's some basic code cleanup needed here, also: comment > formatting, variable naming, etc. Hans-Jürgen, Will you be able to get to this in the next couple of days? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
