On 27 March 2014 21:01, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > First, sorry guys for letting this slide - I was overwhelmed by other works, > and this kind of slipped my mind :-( > > On Mar27, 2014, at 09:04 , Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 26 March 2014 19:43, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> I've attached an updated invtrans_strictstrict_base patch which has the >>>>> feature removed. >>>> >>>> What is the state of play on this patch? Is the latest version what's in >>>> >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/64f96fd9-64d1-40b9-8861-e61820292...@phlo.org >>>> plus this sub-patch? Is everybody reasonably happy with it? I don't >>>> see it marked "ready for committer" in the CF app, but time is running >>>> out. >>>> >>> >>> As far as I know the only concern left was around the extra stats in the >>> explain output, which I removed in the patch I attached in the previous >>> email. >>> >> >> Agreed. That was my last concern regarding the base patch, and I agree >> that removing the new explain output is probably the best course of >> action, given that we haven't reached consensus as to what the most >> useful output would be. > > After re-reading the thread, I'd prefer to go with Dean's suggestion, i.e. > simply reporting the total number of invocations of the forward transition > functions, and the total number of invocations of the reverse transition > function, over reporting nothing. The labels of the two counts would simply > be "Forward Transitions" and "Reverse Transitions". >
That should be "Inverse" not "Reverse" according to the terminology agreed upthread. Personally, I'm not a big fan of that terminology because "forward" and "inverse" aren't natural antonyms. But actually I think that it's "forward" that is the wrong word to use, because they actually both move (different ends of) the frame forwards. The only alternatives I can think of are "direct" and "inverse", which are natural antonyms, but I don't want to hold up this patch bikeshedding over this. OTOH this is not the first time on this thread that someone has slipped into calling them "forward" and "reverse" transitions. > But I don't want this issue to prevent us from getting this patch into 9.4, > so if there are objections to this, I'll rip out the EXPLAIN stuff all > together. > >>> The invtrans_strictstrict_base.patch in my previous email replaces the >>> invtrans_strictstrict_base_038070.patch in that Florian sent here >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/64f96fd9-64d1-40b9-8861-e61820292...@phlo.org >>> all of the other patches are unchanged so it's save to use Florian's latest >>> ones >>> >>> Perhaps Dean can confirm that there's nothing else outstanding? >>> >> >> Florian mentioned upthread that the docs hadn't been updated to >> reflect the latest changes, so I think they need a little attention. > > I'll see to updating the docs, and will post a final patch within the next > few days. > > Dean, have you by chance looked at the other patches yet? > No, sorry. I too have been swamped by other work. I will try to look at them over the next few days. I don't anticipate that they will be as complex as the base patch, so I hope that this can be finished in time for 9.4. If there are any other reviewers with spare cycles, feel free to jump in too. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
