On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > 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?
I don't see a response to this which I assume means "no" - I'm going to take a crack at fixing some of these issues. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
